Delhi High Court
Vishal vs University Of Delhi on 7 February, 2018
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 07.02.2018
+ W.P. (C) 1162/2018
VISHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Chandni Sadana, Advocate
with Mr.Onkar Singh and Mr.Ajay Pratap
Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of
the impugned Award dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court-I, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as 'Industrial Adjudicator') in ID Case No. 8/2011
answering the reference against him.
2. On an advance copy having been served, Mr.Santosh Kumar,
Advocate appears for the respondent/management.
3. There is absolutely no plausible explanation offered by the
petitioner for the exorbitant and abnormal delay of more than
five years in approaching this court. Though no period of
limitation is prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India but there is no rule of universal
application for condonation of delay. Though, there may be no
period for limitation prescribed for filing the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India yet the person aggrieved
should approach the court without loss of time and if there is a
delay, the petitioner must offer cogent explanation. The line of
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue would be
indicative that the courts have evolved self imposed restraints in
inquiring into belated or stale claims. One who is tardy, not
vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a
reasonable time from the date of arising of the cause of action
or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is
not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Since the petitioner has not offered any just explanation
in his writ petition. Same is held to be barred by time and
latches and abnormal delay.
4. Even on merits, it is noted that the following reference was
made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial
Adjudicator: -
"Whether the action of the University of the Registrar of
Delhi University, Delhi, in terminating the services of
Shri Vishal, S/o late Shri Mahender Singh with effect
from 01.11.2006 is legal and justified? To what relief
the workman is entitled?
5. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as
WW-1. His examination-in-chief was partly recorded on
09.03.2011 and 22.07.2011. He appeared for cross-examination
on 04.11.2011 and thereafter the petitioner did not appear for
his cross-examination. Industrial Adjudicator noted that the
petitioner failed to appear on several subsequent dates i.e.
16.11.2011, 28.12.2011, 09.02.2012, 20.03.2012, 23.04.2012,
15.05.2012 and 28.06.2012 and the Industrial Adjudicator was
constrained to close the evidence of the petitioner.
6. On behalf of respondent/management Sh. G.K. Singh tendered
his affidavit in evidence testifying that the petitioner had
abandoned the job on 01.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed an undated application for the first time on 14.05.2009
seeking permission to resume his duties. His mother Smt.
Sudesh moved an application dated 09.03.2007 confirming that
after his marriage the petitioner left for Portblair in December,
2006 where his in-laws have been residing. He went to
Portblair to settle himself there. Industrial Adjudicator was
satisfied that this is the sufficient reason to conclude that the
petitioner had abandoned his job on 01.11.2006.
7. The petitioner has failed to prove that his services were
terminated by the respondent/management. On the given facts
Industrial Adjudicator has come to a right conclusion that in
fact the petitioner had abandoned his job. In these
circumstances, the respondent/management cannot be blamed
that the services of the petitioner were terminated by it. In fact
the petitioner is himself guilty of abandoning the job without
any justification. Therefore, even on the merits, I do not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned award dated
29.06.2012.
8. As such the petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2018
"shailendra"
