CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

K.D. Auto Industries vs Mr. Ram Pratap and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 20 July 2009 · Citation: (2009) 07 DEL CK 0270

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Aggarwal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 8410 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 362 words

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 16.07.2005 passed

by Mr. S.N. Gupta, POLC X, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages.

2.

Heard.

3.

This petition seeking to challenge the impugned award has been filed by the management after about 4 years of passing of the said award.

Though the petitioner has filed an application being CM No. 5289/2009 for condonation of delay in filing of the writ petition but the said

application hardy justify the delay in filing of this petition. The only ground for condonation of delay taken in the application is that the petitioner

was suffering from financial crises due to closure of his factory and also undergone major surgery due to which he could not file the petition in time.

This hardly justify the delay on the part of the petitioner.

4.

Though no limitation is prescribed for filing of a writ petition against an impugned award but it does not mean that the petitioner being the

management will sleep over the matter for years and then suddenly wake up one day and decide to challenge the impugned award at its sweet will

and try to justify the delay on the ground of alleged financial crises. The petitioner says in the application that he had undergone major surgery also

as a reason for delay in filing of writ petition but neither the date on which he underwent the alleged surgery nor the nature of surgery is disclosed in

the application. The plea of surgery taken in the application is not supported by any medical evidence and therefore I am not inclined to accept the

same as a ground for condoning the delay. In my opinion, this writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and latches and cannot be entertained

after about four years of the passing of the impugned award.

5.

In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is dismissed and consequent thereto the main writ petition as

well as stay application also stands dismissed as barred by delay and latches.