GANESHI SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Intra -Court appeal impugns the order dated 8th August, 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 4583/2011 preferred by the appellant. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The appellant was employed as an Assistant Storekeeper with the respondent DTC and was vide order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent DTC inflicted with punishment of "stoppage of his next due two increments with cumulative effect" and of recovery of Rs. 748/ -. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected on 31st August, 2001. The appellant did not pursue the matter further till his retirement from DTC on 31st August, 2005. Post retirement, the appellant, in or about the year 2006 filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal seeking restoration of two increments withheld vide order dated 15th November, 1999 aforesaid. The respondent DTC filed a reply to the said application, also controverting the very maintainability thereof. The appellant withdrew the said application (LCA No. 133/2006) on 14th February, 2007 and filed an application (LCA No. 8/2007) under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming arrears on account of the two increments withheld vide order dated 15th November, 1999 supra as well as recovery of Rs. 748/ - deducted in terms of the said order from his emoluments. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 4th March, 2010 holding inter alia that there could be no determination of rights in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act.

(2.) IT is thereafter that the appellant filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises. In the said writ petition, the order dated 4th March, 2010 aforesaid of the Labour Court was not impugned; on the contrary the order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent DTC was challenged.

(3.) IT is apparent from the facts set -out above that the appellant had allowed the order dated 15th November, 1999 and the order of dismissal of appeal there against to attain finality and could not, after ten years and after six years of his retirement be permitted to challenge the same. Though the counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was misguided into filing the applications aforesaid before the Industrial Adjudicator but even if the time taken therein is to be excluded, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the first application before the Industrial Adjudicator itself was filed in the year 2006 i.e. after five years of the rejection of the appeal and after one year of the retirement. There is no explanation whatsoever for the said delay.