D.T.C. vs Aas Mohammad & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5357 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 01 November, 2019

       CM Appl. No. 29527/2019 (Direction/clarification of error) in

+      W.P.(C) No. 498/2004

       D.T.C.                                            ..... Appellant
                               Through:    Ms. Bhakti Pasrija Sethi and
                               Ms. Reshma, Advs.

                               versus

       AAS MOHAMMAD & ANR.                              ... Respondents
                  Through:                  None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                          O R D E R (ORAL)

% 01.11.2019

CM No. 29527/2019 (direction/clarification of error)

1. This application seeks clarification of the order dated 21st December, 2017, passed by me in W.P.(C) 6244/2003.

2. To a pointed query, from the Court, as to the aspect on which, according to her, the order dated 21st December, 2017, suffers from any want of clarity, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, there is no want of clarity in the order, her client is being prejudiced because the Industrial Tribunal is not implementing the order in the manner in which it ought to be implemented.

3. If that is the grievance of the applicant, the remedy would lie elsewhere.

4. Orders of Courts are intended to be self speaking. Clarification of a judicial order is required to be provided where the order is unclear. Courts are not intended to clarify orders merely because the authorities required to comply with the order are not implementing them in the proper spirit.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has candidly submitted that, though there is no want of clarity in the order dated 21st December, 2017, she has moved this application only because the Tribunal is not effectively complying with the order.

6. While this Court understands the concern of the applicant, the remedy would not be by way of an application for clarification.

7. Accordingly, this application, being misconceived, is dismissed.

8. Needless to say, this would not preclude the applicant from availing appropriate remedies in law, as advised.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

NOVEMBER 01, 2019/kr