Janam Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2010 Latest Caselaw 5366 Del

                                                         UNREPORTABLE


*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                 WP (C) No.7900/2010 & C.M. No.20400/2010


                                     Date of Decision: November 25, 2010


       JANAM SINGH                                ...... Petitioner
                           through Mr. G.S.Charya, Advocate


                      versus


       DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION           ..... Respondent
                     through Ms. Latika Choudhury, Advocate
                     for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This writ-petition has been preferred against orders of the Labour

Court dated July 25, 2006 and August 19, 2006. The first order holds

that the inquiry conducted by the Management against the

petitioner-workman was fair and proper and as per the second,

removal of the petitioner-workman by the Management has been

found to be in order.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was given notice informing

him that the inquiry against him was going to be conducted on

June 20, 1994. It is also not disputed that he failed to appear on the

said date on ground of his illness. His grievance is that the Enquiry

Officer who took up the case again for further inquiry on July 12, 1994

did not inform him about the said date. As per him, he was duty bound

to do so.

The question is, whether the Enquiry Officer was under any

obligation to inform the petitioner about the date of hearing which took

place on July 12, 1994 or was not a duty cast upon the

petitioner-workman to inquire about the next date of hearing when for

reason of his illness, it was he who did not appear on June 20, 1994?

The petitioner fully well knew that a domestic inquiry was being

conducted against him. It was on account of his illness that the

Enquiry Officer did not take up the case on June 20, 1994. In this view

of the matter, I feel, it was the duty of the petitioner to enquire about

the adjourned date of hearing.

In any case, the writ-petition suffers from delay and laches. The

impugned orders were passed on July 25, 2006 and August 19, 2006.

The workman has chosen to challenge the same in the year 2010. No

cogent explanation has been rendered as to what prevented him for

four years to assail the orders in question.

There is no merit in the writ-petition or in the application for

condonation of delay in filing the writ-petition. The same are

dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

NOVEMBER 25, 2010 ka