c \ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #26 + W. P. (C) 7251/2011 SHARAFAT KHAN Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 30.09.2011 ^ 1. The Petitionerchallengesan order dated 13'^ May 2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal ^Tribunal') in ID No. 118 of 2007 closing the workman's evidence as well as that of the management and placing the case for pronouncement of award on conclusion of the arguments. The Petitioner also challenges the impugned Award dated 31^' May 2008 whereby the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner workman's claim that he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk (TDC) with effectfrom 1^^ April 1988. The Petitionerfurtherchallengesan order dated3"^ May 2011 passedby the Tribunaldismissingan applicationfiled by the Petitioner (Miscl. No. 22 of 2010) for setting aside the order dated 13"^May 2008 and Awarddated31^^May 2008. 2. The ground urged before the Tribunal seeking recall of the order dated 13"^ May 2008 was that the workman was not informed by either the fV. p. (C) No. 7251/2011 Page 1 of3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified General Secretaryof the Union of which the workmanis a member, and who was authorizedby the workmanto appearin the proceedings,or by the advocate for the workman that his presence was required before the Labour Court. However, the workman failed to explain why he waited for more than two years after the passing of the Award to approach the Labour Court. The Tribunal noticed that the Award had been published on 24"" December 2008 and came into effect on January 2009 and an applicationfor recallofthe said orderhad been filed only on IS'*" August 2010, i.e., admittedlylong after the expiry of the thirty days from the publicationof the award. Referringto Section 17A of the ID Act, the Tribunalobservedthat afterthe expiryof thirty days after the publication of the award, the Tribunalbecamefunctus officioand could not entertain any application. 3. Mr. RajivAgarwal,learnedcounselfor the Petitionerdid not attemptto dispute the above legal positionbut submittedthat this applicationwas more in the nature of a plea by the workmanfor mercy. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclinedto entertainthis request. No satisfactoryexplanationwas given by the Petitionerfor waiting for more than one and halfyears after the publicationof the Award to seek its recall. The Tribunal has correctly appliedSection 17A ofthe ID Act and its impugnedorder dated 3'"'' May W. p. (C) No. 7251/2011 ^ of3 ' li C 2011 suffers from no legal infirmity. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 a kg W. p. (C) No. 7251/2011 S. MURALIDHAR, J. Page 3 of3