Delhi High Court - Orders
Zoological Survey Of India vs Arjun Kumar Khanna on 22 March, 2021
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1244/2005
ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
ARJUN KUMAR KHANNA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 22.03.2021 CM No. 21130/2019
This is an application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 2120 days in filing the application for restoration of the present petition.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed. Delay of 2120 days in filing the application is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CM No. 21129/2019 This is an application filed by the Petitioner for restoration of the present petition which was dismissed for non-appearance on 22.05.2013.
Present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging an Award dated 14.05.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal in I.D. No. 47/1997. Vide order dated 14.05.2004, this Court had stayed the operation of the Award and the stay order was confirmed vide order dated 17.03.2008. The Court had directed the Petitioner to pay last drawn wages or minimum wages whichever was higher to the Respondent. On 08.11.2010, Rule was issued in the matter.
It is averred in the application that since the matter was listed in the category of Regular Matters and there was no actual date, it was not being taken up for hearing. The case was being conducted by Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner but subsequently he was appointed as Member (Judicial), Central Administrative Tribunal and the Petitioner could not keep track of the matter.
It is further averred that in the meantime, the dealing officials were also transferred and during this period, the matter was suddenly taken up on 22.05.2013 and dismissed in default, in the absence of both the parties. Copy of the order was sent by the Registry to the Respondent on 15.02.2016 but no information was given to the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner was unaware of the passing of the said order. Subsequently, it was learnt in the month of June, 2018 that the Petition had been dismissed, however, immediate action could not be taken as the papers relating to the case were unavailable with the officers at that point in time. The present counsel was thus nominated, who applied for the certified copy of the complete record, which were received on 11.01.2019. Thereafter the matter was discussed with the officials and present application was drafted and filed.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the non-appearance on behalf of the Petitioner is bonafide and only on account of the fact that the petition was listed in the category of regular matters, with no actual date of hearing. In the meantime, not only the counsel conducting the case was appointed as a Member in the Tribunal but the officials and the dealing assistants dealing with the case in the Department also changed.
Learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the application on the ground that the Petitioner being a Government Department ought to have been more diligent in pursuing the writ petition with all the resources available. He submits that the explanation given is not worthy of acceptance and sufficient cause has not been made out for restoration.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. From the record, it is substantiated that Rule was issued in the matter on 08.11.2010 and the petition was thereafter appearing in the list of Regular Matters. On account of this, there were no actual dates of hearing and the petition was not listed for over 3 years. It is also a matter of record that the counsel conducting the case was appointed as Member (Judicial) in the Central Administrative Tribunal and on account of this and there being no dates of hearing, Petitioner could not keep track of the matter. In my view, Petitioner has made out sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Petition is restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1244/2005 Mr. Anirudh Joshi learned counsel for the Respondent at this stage submits that the dues payable to the Respondent under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directed by the Court vide order dated 17.03.2008 have not been paid since May, 2013.
Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj learned counsel for the Petitioner assures the Court that all the outstanding dues since May, 2013 till date to the Respondent shall be paid positively within a period of 8 weeks from today.
List on 13.07.2021.
Dasti.
JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 22, 2021 yo