* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009 % Date of Decision: 24 July, 2009 # Smt. Sharda & Ors. ..... PETITIONERS ! Through: Mr. S.K. Anand, Advocate. VERSUS $ Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Nemo. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper 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 S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No.8997/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009 This is an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 15 days in refiling of this petition. Delay in refiling of the petition is condoned. This application stands disposed of. CM No.8996/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009 This is an application under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC filed by petitioner No. 1 for her appointment as guardian ad litem for her minor children being petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the present petition. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 being the mother of petitioners No. 2 to 4 has no adverse interest to her minor children. Having regard to the averments contained in this application and W.P.(C) No.10364/2009 Page 1 of 3 the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is appointed as guardian ad litem for her minor children for the purpose of the present petition. This application also stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 10364/2009 & CM No.8995/2009 (for stay) This writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased workman (the petitioners herein) is directed against an interim order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator rejecting their application for summoning the personal file of the workman. I have gone through the impugned order and have considered the submissions made by the petitioners' learned counsel. The petitioners wanted to summon the personal file of the deceased workman to prove that the deceased workman had submitted three medical certificates on 28.10.1996 to justify his absence on medical grounds for the period from 12.03.1996 to 25.10.1996. The case of the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased workman in their application filed for summoning of personal file of the deceased workman was that the deceased workman had given three medical certificates for the period of his absence and those medical certificates are available in his personal file. The court below in its impugned order has observed the conduct of the petitioners that they are not allowing the case to proceed further. It is mentioned that the case before the court below was fixed for final arguments on 25.04.2005 and thereafter the petitioners have been taking adjournments on one or the other pretext and filed the application for summoning of personal file to further delay the proceedings. Even if we ignore the conduct of the petitioners for delaying the matter before the court below, still the personal file of the deceased workman sought to W.P.(C) No.10364/2009 Page 2 of 3 be summoned by them was not required because it is clear from the impugned order that the management has not disputed that the medical certificates for the period from 12.03.1996 to 25.10.1996 given by the deceased workman are available in his personal file but the case of the management to oppose the summoning of the personal file of the workman was that those medical certificates were given by the deceased workman after 25.10.1996. The petitioners in their present writ petition also admit that the medical certificates were given by the deceased workman on 28.10.1996 much after 21.06.1996 when his name was struck of from the rolls of the management. In that view of the matter, the personal file of the deceased workman was not required for adjudicating the industrial dispute raised by the deceased workman during his life time regarding striking of his name from the rolls of the management. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. JULY 24, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.10364/2009 Page 3 of 3