$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 2nd December, 2025 Pronounced on : 17^th December, 2025

+ LPA 3/2025, CM APPL. 72/2025, CM APPL. 75/2025, CM APPL.

46295/2025 & CM APPL. 46296/2025

THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME (CGHS) & ORS. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC

alongwith Mr. Vatsal Tripathi,

Advocate.

versus

RAM CHANDER & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna De,

Mr. N Bhushan, Ms. Ekta Tomar, Ms. L Gangmei Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Ms. Renu & Ms. Arthana Brahma,

Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

Per DINESH MEHTA, J.

CM APPL. 73/2025 (delay)

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.07.2024, the appellants have preferred present Letters Patent Appeal, claiming that learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2133/2020 that was filed by them and in upholding the award dated 23.08.2019 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) passed in the claim petition which was filed by the respondents on behalf of 267

workmen.

2. Hardly had Mr. Bajpai, learned CGSC for the appellants commenced his submissions, when Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents raised two preliminary objections; first, regarding the unexplained delay of 63 days in filing the appeal and second, regarding the scope of interference while hearing the appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act.

3. Advancing his argument, Mr. Agarwal further stated that the delay of 63 days in filing the instant appeal has been sought to be condoned by way of an application being CM APPL. 73/2025; a perusal whereof reveals that the appellants have not stated any reason worth the name, leave apart bona fide reasons justifying the delay. He submitted that the subject application has been filed cursorily, thinking that this Court will condone the delay, as a matter of their right.

4. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr, reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563, he submitted that in light of the said judgment, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 63 days deserves to be rejected and consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Adverting to his other preliminary objection, learned counsel for respondents submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the scope of interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an award of the Labour Court is very limited, and when it comes to an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act against an order rejecting such writ petition, the scope of interference gets even narrower. He contended that an appeal under Letters Patent Act cannot be heard as a regular statutory appeal and if the learned Single Judge has passed a detailed judgment and considered all aspects of the matter, the Division Bench, while hearing the appeal thereagainst, would not re-examine the submissions and appreciate evidence as a regular appeal.

6. Responding to the preliminary objections, Mr. Shashank Bajpai, learned CGSC for the appellants, fairly submitted that true it is, that the application seeking condonation of delay (CM APPL. 73/2025) has not been properly drafted and proper reasons have not come forth explaining the delay; but nevertheless given the fact that it is not a case of one single workman but a case involving 267 Data Entry Operators, qua whom the Labour Court had passed an award, not only of regularisation but also of payment of the back wages from the date of their initial appointment, a lenient view be taken, he prayed.

7. He further submitted that, having regard to the facts involved, the delay is not inordinate (63 days). He also submitted that limitation period prescribed for an appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent Act is 30 days