Decided on January 10,2007

MAYA Respondents


- (1.) THIS writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. The impugned order was passed as far as back on 22-1-2003 on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of its action to remove the respondent from service on the alleged ground of misconduct of the respondent for remaining absent from duty for about 75 days.
(2.) THE petitioner in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of DTC v. Sardar Singh, 2004 VIII AD (SC)371: 2004 (6) 613. The petitioner in a very casual manner in para 8 of the petition has tried to explain as to why the said order could not be challenged after lapse of more than three years. Para 8 of the petition is reproduced below: "that the present case was handed over to advocate Tayab Khan to file petition before this Hon'ble court against the order passed by Ld. Labour court. The advocate neither filed the petition nor returned the case file to the corporation. As a result, the petition could not be filed earlier. The case was handed over to advocate Sh. Ajay Shankar Sharma in month of May 2006. The petition however again could not be filed. Finally the case has been handed over to the counsel undersigned and the petition is being filed herewith. The delay in filing the petition is due to the circumstances narrated above. The order passed by Ld. Tribunal is not in consonance with law and accordingly deserves to be quashed. "
(3.) THE respondent in the present case has already expired. No sufficient reasons have been disclosed in the petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the present petition as well as no separate application has been filed giving the detailed reasons as to how the petitioner was prevented to file the present petition after such a delay of more than three years.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.