WP(C) No.8661/2009 Page 1 of 4 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8661/2009 Date of Decision : 08.5.2009 SH.JITENDER SINGH YADAV …… Petitioner Through : Mr. Gauri Shankar Sharma, Advocate. Versus THE MANAGEMENT – D.T.C. …… Respondent Through : Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the award dated 14.12.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court-X in ID No.19/2005 in case titled as The Management of M/s DTC Vs. Its Workman Sh.Jitender Singh Yadav. 2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has held that as the petitioner had not completed 240 days of actual working in a calendar year, he was not entitled to any benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid finding, the present writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.8661/2009 Page 2 of 4 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner may not have completed 240 days however, he was not the last person who had joined the DTC and therefore, he could not be made to go first. In this regard, it has been contended by him although this claim of the last come first go has not been mentioned in the statement of claim but this fact could have been established by the respondents on production of accounts. 5. As regards the inordinate delay in assailing the award, the learned counsel has stated that in para 18 of the writ petition, he has stated that his father was falsely implicated in some criminal case because of which he was under shock and he was suffering financial crisis and therefore, could not challenge the aforesaid award. 6. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The award was passed on 15.1.2005. It was published on 3rd May, 2006 and thereby became enforceable on 02.6.2006 even if the cause of action is deemed to have accrued on 02.6.2006 even then the writ petition has been filed after the expiry of more than 2½ years. Although the petitioner has given the reason for non-filing of the writ petition as the false implication of his father in a criminal case and the financial crises however, I am unable to accept the same as a general preposition which would entitle him WP(C) No.8661/2009 Page 3 of 4 or justify invoking of writ jurisdiction after a lapse of 2 ½ years. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down that although there is no specific period of limitation prescribed invoking the writ jurisdiction but it must be done as expeditiously as possible and if there is a period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act that would be the guiding factor though in a given case it may be even a lesser period. 7. In the instant case, the delay of more than 2 ½ years from the date of publication of the award shows that the petitioner had reconciled to his fate and accepted the award. It seems that the wisdom has dawned on him late to assail the award so that he could get some benefit out of the same. A person cannot be permitted to rake up a stale claim. Therefore, in my opinion, the present writ petition is barred by inordinate delay and laches and accordingly, deserves to be dismissed. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of MP Vs. Bhai Lal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the respondents ought to have adduced the evidence to show that the petitioner was the last person and therefore, he was made to go first is not of any consequence. 9. The basic fundamental of the evidence is that one who asserts must prove as is envisaged under Section 101 of the Evidence Act although the provisions of Evidence Act may not applicable to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court but the principles will be governing the proceedings before the WP(C) No.8661/2009 Page 4 of 4 learned Labour Court also. The petitioner had admittedly not completed 240 days in a calendar year. Even in the statement of claim no specific name has been mentioned of a co-worker who had been recruitment after the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that such a plea has been taken by the petitioner in the statement of claim, the onus was primarily on the petitioner to have adduced evidence to show that there was a person who had been recruited after the petitioner and though his services were retained the services of the petitioner were dispensed with. This has not been done. Therefore, on question of facts also, the learned Labour Court has not found any violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the scope of judicial review is actually to see as to how the decision is arrived and not the quality of decision, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the process of arriving at the said decision. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine apart from the fact that it is barred by inordinate delay and laches. No order as to costs. V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 08, 2009 RN