GAJANAND SHARMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come before this Court against an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 21st February, 2002 whereby the respondent/dtc was granted approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has come to this Court after nearly six years. It appears that the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent on 20th November, 1991. At that time, since another Labour dispute was pending, the DTC applied to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b ). This approval was granted by the Industrial Tribunal on 21st february, 2002 as aforesaid. Consequently, the petitioner's services stood terminated. Dissatisfied by his termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. An award was given by the Industrial Tribunal on 9th May, 2003 dismissing his claim. The petitioner thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ petition No. 6196/2004 wherein he challenged the award dated 9th May, 2003 by which his claim was dismissed. On 27th July, 2006, Writ Petition No. 6196/2004 also came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the award dated 9th May, 2003. The petitioner does not appear to have taken the matter any further. He has now come to this Court by way of challenge to the aforesaid order of 21st February, 2002 whereby permission was granted to the respondent under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has sought to explain this inordinate delay by stating that the petitioner was otherwise engaged in pursuing his challenge to his termination of 20th November, 1991 before the Labour Court which ultimately resulted in the aforesaid award dated 9th May, 2003 and thereafter he was engaged in pursuing Writ Petition No. 6196/2004 which was finally dismissed on 27th July, 2006. He says that it was because these matters were pending that his client was unable to move this Court earlier against the impugned order of 21st February, 2002.

(3.) I do not find any force in this contention. On the contrary, the fact that the petitioner was actively engaged in pursuing his legal remedies, first by contesting the application moved by the DTC under Section 33 (2) (b), and thereafter the proceedings before the Labour Court which resulted in the award dated 9th May, 2003 against him and ultimately in filing Writ Petition no. 6196/2004 which was dismissed on 27th July, 2006, shows that he was active and vigorous in seeking his remedies. There is therefore no reason why the petitioner could not have assailed the impugned order also within reasonable time.