Shri Ram Kumar vs Dirctorate of Education Govt. of NCT of Delhi

V.K. Shali, J.—I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the award dated 25.9.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVII in ID No. 1/2006 in case titled The Workman Sh. Ram Kumar v. The Management of Directorate of Education. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court had held that the services of the petitioner was not terminated illegally or unjustifiably and consequently the reference was answered in negative.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a reference was made. The learned Labour Court on 26.12.2000 has framed the following terms of reference:

Whether the services of Sh. Ram Kumar have been terminated illegally and /or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

Pursuant to the said reference statement of claim was filed by the petitioner stating that he was employed in the department of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi/respondent herein on 21.1.1999 and was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Village Chilla as Chowkidar. It is alleged that his services were terminated on 2.12.1999 by a memo issued to him by the Deputy Director of Education, East District under the guise of simple termination under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner stated that since he had rendered the duty for more than 240 days continuously and his services were not restored despite demand notice dated 8th May, 2000 consequently he got the reference made to the learned Labour Court through appropriate Government. The respondent/Management filed the written statement and contested the claim. A preliminary objection was taken in the written statement that the reference is not maintainable and on merits, it was stated that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of having filed bogus documents.

The petitioner examined himself in support of his case while as the Management examined the Deputy Education Officer Mr. S.K. Gupta as MW1. After analyzing the evidence and the case law, the learned Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection of the respondent /Management with regard to issue No. 1 that it was not an industry. However, on the second issue regarding the employment having been procured on the basis of bogus documents, the learned Labour Court agreed with the views of the Management and accordingly, answered the reference in negative. The award has been passed on 25.9.2007 as it was notified on 24.3.2008 and became enforceable on 23.4.2008.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award has preferred the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner along with the writ has filed an application bearing CM No. 6104/2009 seeking condonation of delay u/s 151 of the CPC wherein it was averred that since the petitioner was a poor workman and remained unemployed from the date of his termination of his services i.e. 02.12.1999, therefore, he did not have sufficient funds available with him to challenge the award. On the basis of this fact the delay is sought to be justified.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The date of the award being as 25.9.2007 and the publication on 24.3.2008 is not in dispute. Though the law of limitation is not applicable to the writ petitions but the principles of remedy being barred on account of inordinate delay and laches is still applicable to the writs. The petitioner had allegedly rendered services of 240 days and the award having been passed on 25.9.2007 if the petitioner still felt aggrieved from the said award, he ought to have assailed the same at the earliest possible opportunity without even waiting for publication. It seems that the petitioner accepted the award and belatedly has woken up to challenge the same now. The inordinate delay is sought to be explained and he did not have sufficient resources available with him. It has not been explained by him in the application, if he did not have sufficient resources then how come he after a lapse of nearly two years he has suddenly woken up to challenge the award and wherefrom the resources got. This plea of the petitioner does not seem to be bonafide and accordingly, is not accepted. Normally what has been seen in such cases the union bargains with the employees and funds them and if they succeed the spoils are shared.

Since the petitioner has acquiesced to the award and did not challenge the same within the reasonable time, I am of the view that the writ petition is barred by inordinate delay and laches and accordingly, the same is deserves to be dismissed in limine. Even on merits, the petitioner has been held to have obtained employed on the basis of bogus documents. Therefore, that fact also cannot be ignored and a wrong cannot be perpetuated.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.