Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2773 (DEL)

RATTAN SINGH v. CHAIRMAN/Managing DIRECTOR, DTC

2007-10-29

Hima Kohli

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the no relief award dated 17th August, 2006 passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court in I. D. No. 73/2006, against the petitioner/workman, at whose instance a reference was made by the appropriate authority on 3rd June, 2004, the terms of which were as to whether the action of the respondent/management in treating the petitioner/workman to have resigned is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, the relief to which he was entitled. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner/workman submits that his services were terminated on 16. 6. 1988 under the garb of deemed resignation and he was removed from service by the respondent/management, vide order dated 6. 2. 1991. However, a dispute was raised by the petitioner/workman only in the year 2004, in which a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Industrial adjudicator. The respondent/management contested the claim of the petitioner/workman on merits and also took a plea of delay and laches. ( 3 ) A perusal of the impugned award shows that a no relief award was passed against the petitioner/workman not only on the ground of delay and laches, but also on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated under the then existing Rule 14 (10) (b) of the DTC (Conditions of appointment and Services) Regulation, 1952 which provided that in case a workman remained on leave beyond three months, his services could not be regularized and he is deemed to have resigned from the services of the Corporation. ( 4 ) THE learned Industrial Adjudicator has held that on the date when the services of the petitioner/workman were terminated, the said Regulation was in force and in this regard the counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that there is a fallacy in the impugned award for the reason that the aforesaid regulation was subsequently deleted by the respondent/management. The said plea is not tenable for the reason that at the relevant time, undoubtedly the aforesaid regulation was in force and the mere fact that the respondent/dtc passed an order dated 6. 12. 2001 deciding not to invoke the said clause in cases where the employees remain/are found absent without permission or prior sanction of leave, cannot be a ground for making it applicable with retrospective effect. 12. 2001 deciding not to invoke the said clause in cases where the employees remain/are found absent without permission or prior sanction of leave, cannot be a ground for making it applicable with retrospective effect. Hence, there is no illegality or mis-interpretation of law insofar as the aforesaid finding in the impugned award is concerned, holding that the service of the petitioner/workman could have been validly terminated on the basis of the said regulation. ( 5 ) THE other ground on which a no relief award is passed is that of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner/workman. There is no explanation put forward on behalf of the petitioner/workman even before this Court to explain the delay of almost 16 years in seeking his remedy in law. The aforesaid position has been taken note of in the impugned award and it has been rightly held that the effect of laches is that it extinguishes a right of a litigant to claim relief. Thus, there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned award that warrants interference by this Court. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed in limine along with the pending application.