CM(M) 705/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~61 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 705/2022 & CM APPL. 31978/2022, CM APPL.

31979/2022

DB CORP LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Rajat

Manchana,

Ms.

Tanya Singh and Ms. Radhika Jain, Advs.

versus

SHAILJA NAQVI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Manu Mishra, and Ms.

Shreya Dutt, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

21.07.2022

[Ideally, as this case involved an allegation of sexual harassment at the

workplace, the identities of the persons involved ought to have been

masked, unless they consented to their disclosure. However, the

learned Industrial Tribunal has not done so, and this is a petition under

Article 227 emanating from the order of the learned Industrial

Tribunal, in which the identities of the complainant and her alleged

oppressor already stand disclosed.]

1.

The issue in controversy, before me, is whether Section 5¹ of

15. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. – Any appeal or any application, other than an

application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted

after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for

not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation. – The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment

of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the

meaning of this section.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002764

CM(M) 705/2022

Page 2 of 11

the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply to appeals under Section 18² of

the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,

Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“the SHW Act”).

2.

Respondent 1 accused Respondent 2 of having harassed her,

sexually, at the workplace. The complaint was referred to an internal

complaints committee of the petitioner which, vide inquiry report

dated 24^th May 2016, exonerated Respondent 2. Respondent 1

appealed thereagainst, under Section 18 of the SHW Act”), to the

learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (“the learned IT”).

The impugned order, dated 3^rd March 2022, passed by the learned

Industrial Tribunal in RCA 343/2016 (Shailja Naqvi v. DB Corp Ltd.)

condones the delay of 36 days in the preferring of the appeal.

3.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

4.

The petitioner has not chosen to question the jurisdiction or

competence of the learned IT to entertain the appeal filed by

Respondent 1.

5.

The issue in controversy in the present case being only whether

218.

Appeal.

(1)

Any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13

or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or subsection (2)

of section 14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to

the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said

person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in any

other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as

may be prescribed

(2)

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002764

CM(M) 705/2022

Page 3 of 11

the learned IT could have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal,

by the respondent, under Section 18 of the SHW Act, no further

reference to facts is necessary.

6.

The contention advanced by the petitioner, both before the

learned IT as well as before this Court, is that, as no provision for

condonation of delay is to be found in Section 18 of the SHW Act, and

as Section 18(2) uses the word “shall”,