$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 + LPA 785/2025 & CM APPL. 80996/2025 RAFEEQUE AHMED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Meghna De, Mr. Siddharth Sapra & Mr. Nitari Hinduja, Advocates.

Versus DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES GNCTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat- SC (GNCTD)

along with Mr. N K Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment / order dated 06.03.2013 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.247/2011 whereby the Award dated 19.05.2010 (“Award”) passed by the learned Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No.1217/2006 in favour of 13 workmen, including the Appellant herein, was set aside.

2. The learned Single Judge held that the termination of the Appellant was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) and consequently W.P.(C) No.247/2011 was dismissed while directing the payment of ₹25,000/- under Section 17B of the ID Act.

3. The Impugned Order was challenged by 12 co-workers of the Appellant by filing two separate appeals, being LPA No.79/2014 and LPA No.731/2014. Both these appeals were allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a common judgment dated 22.10.2019 restoring the Award in favour of all twelve workmen. The Respondent, thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions (“SLPs”) against the said judgment, which were dismissed on 05.10.2021 thereby giving finality to the Award.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant stands on identical footing with his co-workers and since all workmen were party to the same reference before the learned Labour Court and beneficiaries of the same Award, the Appellant is the only workman who has not yet receive the benefit of the Award and denied the same.

5. The Appellant has submitted that the Appellant is a poor workman belonging to the lowest economic strata and has remained unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. Accordingly, in view of the finality of the Judgment 22.10.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in favour of the other identically placed workmen, the Appellant is entitled to the restoration of the Award on the principal of parity. Therefore, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal along with the Application, being CM No.80996/2025, for condonation of delay of 4624 days in filing the present Appeal.

6. The Appellant has submitted that the present Appeal could not be filed within the limitation period due to the circumstances wholly beyond the control of the Appellant. On account of acute poverty, the Appellant was incapable of availing legal assistance for initiating the appellate proceedings and he has been able to muster resources now to challenge the Impugned Order with a great difficulty.

7. The Appellant has submitted that during the intervening period, the Appellant was overburdened with several and continuous medical crisis within his family, which further depleted his already meagre financial resources and made it impossible for him to pursue the remedy of filing appeal within the period of limitation. The Appellant was responsible for taking care of his old age parents both of whom are nearly 80 years of age and have been suffering from various ailments. It was submitted that the Appellant’s father underwent a heart operation approximately six months ago and Appellant’s wife has been suffering from epilepsy and was required ongoing medical supervision.

8. The Appellant’s elder son suffered from epilepsy during the year 2013 to 2017 and his younger son underwent an appendix surgery in 2020. In view of the same, the Appellant had no means to obtain legal representation to file the appeal against the Impugned Order at the relevant time.

9. The Appellant has submitted that the delay in approach