Dharamshila Hospital Employee ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1890 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Decided on April 15, 2014
+                             W.P.(C) 2285/2014
DHARAMSHILA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE UNION (REGD.)
                                             ..... Petitioner
            Represented by: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber,
                            Advocate

                     versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                            ..... Respondents
              Represented by: None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

C.M No.4804/2014 Allowed; subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 2285/2014

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated August 21, 2012 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on an application filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that he be declared as a protected workman under Section 33(4) read with Rule 61 of the Rules of 1957. Suffice to state that the declaration sought was for the period between April 01, 2011 to March 31, 2012.

2. Initially the petitioner along with other office bearers filed an application with the respondent organization for declaring them as a protected workman. It appears that no action was taken by the respondent organization for declaring him as protected workman. This resulted in filing of an application which is annexed at Annexure G to

the writ petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has vide impugned order decalred the petitioner as protected workman with effect from April 01, 2011 to February 20, 2012. This is primarily for the reason that with effect from February 21, 2012 the petitioner services stood dismissed. I find that the impugned order was passed almost one and half years back. No reasons have been given in the petition for explaining the delay that has taken place in filing the petition except a bald averment in para No.6 (page 15) of the writ petition)that the petition does not suffer from any delay and laches. In the absence of any explanation, I find that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches, more particularly as the declaration sought was for the financial year 2011-12 which period has expired long back.

3. The writ petition is dismissed without going into the merit of the case.

4. No costs.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 15, 2014 km