Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, GIRISH KATHPALIA, JJ.
Ashok Hotel – Appellant
Versus
Triloki - Respondent
LPA 1160 of 2024, CM APPL. 69276 of 2024, CM APPL. 69277 of 2024, CM APPL. 69278 of 2024, CM APPL. 69279 of 2024, CM APPL. 69280 of 2024 & CM APPL. 69281 of 2024
Decided on : 27-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Seemant K Garg and Mr. Nitin Pal, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of timely appeals and rejected the appellant's request for condonation of a 626-day delay due to lack of valid justification.
Headnote:
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Compensation - The respondent workman was terminated and awarded Rs. 1 lakh by the Labour Court, which was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakh by the High Court - The appellant's delay of 626 days in appealing was not condoned due to lack of sustainable argument - The appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Delay in filing appeal - The court emphasized the importance of timely appeals and the consequences of complacency by the appellant, leading to harassment of the respondent workman. (Paras 8-16)
Facts of the case:
The respondent workman was terminated, leading to an industrial dispute resolved by the Labour Court, which awarded compensation. The High Court later enhanced this amount significantly.
Findings of Court:
The court found no valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for compliance with the earlier judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned and the validity of the earlier judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's complacency and lack of respect for the previous orders warranted dismissal of the appeal without consideration of merits.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
LPA 1160/2024, CM APPL. 69276/2024, CM APPL. 69277/2024, CM APPL. 69278/2024, CM APPL. 69279/2024, CM APPL. 69280/2024 & CM APPL. 69281/2024
1. The respondent workman was terminated by the appellant. He instituted an industrial dispute which was disposed of, by the learned Labour Court, by award dated 24 March 2012. The learned Labour Court held that the respondent was an employee of the appellant and that he had been illegally terminated. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court awarded Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement.
2. The appellant never chose to challenge the said order.
3. However, the respondent workman, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court, approached this Court by way of WP (C) 5227/2012.
4. By judgment dated 19 October 2022, the learned Single Judge has accepted the petition of the respondent workman and has enhanced the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10 lakh to be paid within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
5. It is this judgment which is now sought to be assailed in the present Letters Patent Appeal, which has admittedly been filed after a delay of 626 days.
6. The appeal, needless to say, is accompanied by CM 69280/2024, filed under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is worthwhile to reproduce the entire application, thus:
“l. That the accompanying appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the impugned judgement dated 19.10.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5227 of 2012 case titled as "Triloki vs Ashok Hotel" by the Ld. Single Judge, High Court of Delhi. The contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this application and the same has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.
2. The accompanying appeal has been preferred before this Hon'ble Court with a delay of 626 days and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal arose due to the facts mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs below.
3. It is submitted that upon the pronouncement of the judgment dated 19.10.2022 by the Ld. Single Judge, the Petitioner did not wish to challenge the same initially before this Hon'ble Court as it intended to pay the compensation amount of rupees one lacs to put a quietus to the entire issue.
4. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a Cont. Case No. 261/2024 before another bench of this Hon'ble Court, the notice of which was received by the Appellant in the 3rd week of March, 2024. It is submitted that the receiving of the said notice of contempt against the Appellant prompted the Appellant to again peruse the entire case records of the captioned matter.
5. During tracing and searching for the aforesaid records between April to June, 2024, the Petitioner found certain new documents dated back to 1990s which will turn around and clarify the nature of employment of the Respondent. Such documents are also of the nature to even show that how the Respondent misrepresented the Ld. Single Judge and the Ld. Labour Court.
6. Regarding the same, the Appellant is a Govt. of India undertaking is bound by its procedure and sought legal opinion in the last week of June, 2024 as to the viability of challenging the impugned judgment. After having various discussions with its counsels regarding the filing of the captioned Appeal, the Appellant engaged the services of its counsels for drafting, filing and contesting the Appeal.
7. After their appointment, the counsels drafted the Appeal in July, 2024 and sent the same to the Appellant for perusal and approval of the same. Pursuant thereto, various meetings were held between the officials of the Appellant and the undersigned counsels for finalization of the Appeal for filing before this Hon'ble Court.
8. It is pertinent to note that various revisions were carried out in the draft of the accompanying Appeal which was finalized by the Appellant and its counsels o
