Vinod Kaushik vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 1023 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  LPA No. 171/2011

Vinod Kaushik                         ....Appellant.
                   Through      Mrs. S.R. Padhy, Advocate.

                         VERSUS

Delhi Development Authority           .....Respondent
               Through      Ms. R. Veena, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                ORDER

%                              21.02.2011


CM No. 3553/2011

      Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 3552/2011

For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

LPA NO. 171/2011

Writ Petition (C)No. 2468/1998 filed by Delhi Development

Authority was allowed vide order dated 19th April, 2010 and the award

dated 25th March, 1997 directing reinstatement of Mr. Vinod Kaushik,

appellant herein with full back wages was quashed. It was noticed that

the Labour Court had passed the said award on the ground that the

appellant herein had worked as Beldar on daily wages from 24th March,

1983 till 25th August, 1987. In the order dated 19th April, 2010, the

learned Single Judge observed that the appellant workman was guilty of

misconduct and was named in the FIR. It is the case of the respondent

DDA that the appellant had participated in political activities and was

associated with criminal attack on some DDA officers.

2. No one had appeared on behalf of the appellant/workman at the

time of final hearing and disposal of the writ petition on 19th April,

2010.

3. The appellant workman thereafter filed CM No. 9124/2010

stating inter alia that he was not aware of the writ petition and was not

served with the notice of hearing in the said petition. By the impugned

order dated 7th December, 2010, CM No. 9124/2010 has been

dismissed. This order is made subject matter of challenge in the

present intra court appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and do

not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 7th

December, 2010 for recall of the order dated 19th April, 2010. Learned

single Judge in the impugned order dated 7th December, 2010 had

noticed that six attempts were made to serve the appellant by ordinary

process and thereafter he was served by publication. It was also

noticed that there was a typographical error in the address of the

appellant given in the memo of parties, which was incorrectly written as

RV-402, Pitam Pura, New Delhi instead of RU 402, Pitam Pura, Delhi 34.

However, the process server in his report had stated that there was no

'RV' block in Pitam Pura and, therefore, he had visited premises No. RU-

402, Pitam Pura, Delhi 34 on numerous occasions but the appellant

could not be served. Further Ms. Sarita Malhotra and Ms. Priyanka

Walia had appeared on behalf of the appellant in the writ proceedings

on 22nd February, 1999 and 28th March, 2000. It is not possible to accept

the contention of the appellant that the said advocates had appeared

without his knowledge and instructions. It may also be relevant to

reproduce the following findings of the learned Single Judge :-

"I may note that in the judicial record of this Court besides appearances on behalf of the workman, there was in fact an inspection which was conducted of this Court file on behalf of respondent No.2 on 19.11.1998 by one Sh.B.P. Aggarwal, Advocate. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.2 as to who was the counsel appearing in the Labour Court on behalf of workman, it is admitted that the Advocate was one Mr. Aggarwal, however, she did not remember the complete initials but stated that one of the initial was 'B'. Mr. Aggarwal therefore appears to be the Advocate who conducted the case on behalf of the workman in the labour court and as per a normal Vakalatnamas being filed in the cases the Advocate is authorized to appear even in the appellate court. In fact the present workman's counsel's Vakalatnama is also the same."

5. It is difficult to perceive and believe that the appellant was not

aware of the writ petition and the factum that the respondent DDA had

challenged the award dated 25th March, 1997 in Writ petition (C) No.

2468/98. The said award was in favour of the appellant workman and

he was entitled to back-wages and reinstatement. In normal course he

would have taken steps for implementation of the award and getting

the benefits. It is difficult to believe and accept that the appellant

would have kept quite till 2009/2010, unless he was aware about the

pendency of the writ. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any

orders as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 21, 2011 kkb