OM PRAKASH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application is filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The delay is of 2 years and 153 days, as the impugned judgment and order which is under challenge is dated 6th May, 2005. There is no reason given in the application explaining the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal belatedly and on such a distant date. On this ground alone, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) IT is nowhere stated in the application that the appellant was not aware of the order dated 6th May, 2005 immediately after the same was pronounced and, therefore, we presume that he had knowledge of the said order. Despite the said fact, the appellant did not challenge the order immediately thereafter, if he was really aggrieved by the said order. He accepted the same and did not take any effective steps to challenge the same in accordance with law. On the face of the records of the case, it can be said that the appellant has slept over his rights, if any. There is inordinate delay and laches and want of due diligence on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court. The appellant has miserably failed to make out any case for sufficient cause in the present case. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. LPA 75/2008

(3.) THE respondent removed the appellant from service, who was a workman after conducting a departmental enquiry and upon finding the appellant guilty of the charges. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court. In the said reference proceedings, one of the issues which was framed and was decided was as to whether the enquiry held by the management was fair and proper. Since the Labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair and proper, it proceeded to hear the matter on merits on the basis of the issues framed as per the terms of reference. The Labour Court held that the absence of the workman during the period mentioned in the charge-sheet was treated as absence on leave without pay amounting to granting of leave and, therefore, the dismissal of the appellant from service on that ground was not justified. The aforesaid decision of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent/dtc by filing a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single judge, making reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport corporation Vs. Sardar Singh 2004 (6) Scale 613, held that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court and decision rendered by it are required to be set aside in view of the settled position of law after the judgment of sardar Singh (supra ). The following paragraphs of the said judgment are relevant and the same are, therefore, extracted hereinbelow:-