Delhi High Court
Gajraj Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 3 September, 2019
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03/09/2019
+ LPA No.565/2019
GAJRAJ SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sharad Prakash Pandey &
Mr.Manish Kr. Tiwari, Advs.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. Sarfaraz
Khan & Mr. Nitesh Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 39562/2019 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 39563/2019 (application seeking condonation of 2167
days delay in filing of the petition)
Applicant seeks condonation of 2167 days in filing the present appeal.
Reasons for the delay are set-out in paragraph 3 of the application
which is reproduced below:
"That a delay of 2167 days has occurred in filing the
accompanying Letter Patent Appeal because Appellant being a
LPA 565/2019 page 1 of 4
poor person and belongs to the economically poor society, the
Appellant could not arrange the money for file the instant
appeal and approach his advocate in the time. Therefore, the
captained Letter Patent Appeal is being filed at this stage after
delay on 2167 days has occurred. That the said delay has
occurred due to the abovementioned reasons which are
bonafide and beyond the control of the Appellant."
2. We find the reasons as set out in the application do not justify
condonation of delay of 2167 days. The law with regard to dealing with an
application seeking condonation of delay is well settled, it is not the number
of days of delay which are relevant but the grounds on which delay is sought
to be condoned. It is also well-settled that the court must satisfy itself as to
the reasons stated for seeking condonation of delay before allowing such
application.
3. The present application is vague, lacks material particulars and the
ground mentioned in the application does not inspire any confidence. There
are no reasons to show as to what are the changes in the circumstances in the
past six years for filing of the appeal at this stage. In the case of Brijesh
Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported as (2014) 11 SCC 351,
the Apex Court has held as under :
"10. The courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach
in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. However
the court while allowing such application has to draw a
distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona
fides of an inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the
protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sufficient
cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the
court for condoning the delay. This Court has time and again
LPA 565/2019 page 2 of 4
held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and
that delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly
explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic
grounds alone."
Resultantly, we find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the
same is dismissed.
LPA 565/2019
4. We have also examined the impugned order and heard the learned
counsel on the merits of the matter. It may be noted that the following
issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal on 31.05.2000 :
"(i) Whether a proper domestic enquiry was not conducted in
accordance with principle of natural justice and if so, its effect?
(ii) As per terms of reference?"
5. Against the award of the Tribunal, the workmen had filed a writ
petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Taking into
consideration and examining the evidence, the learned Single Judge held
that the inquiry was held in a fair and proper manner and that there were no
violations of principles of natural justice. The Single Judge has also taken
into consideration that the Industrial Adjudicator has taken note of the fact
that the petitioner (the appellant herein) had admitted in his cross-
examination that he was supplied all the documents relating to the charges
levelled against him. Inquiry proceedings marked as Ex-MW-1/2 also
indicate that an option was given to the appellant to take the help of a co-
worker, which he declined. The inquiry proceedings also contain his
signatures.
LPA 565/2019 page 3 of 4
6. We are further of the view that the Single Judge rightly applied the
law, which is well-settled pertaining to matters regarding exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no infirmity in the
order on merits as well.
7. The LPA is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
SEPTEMBER 03, 2019
uj
LPA 565/2019 page 4 of 4
