W.P.(C)7187/2003 Page 1 of 3 +*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CMs No.6632&6633/2009 in W.P.(C) 7187/2003 % Date of decision: 19th May, 2010 SH. SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Robin Majumdar, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 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 No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner has filed these applications for restoration of the writ petition dismissed in default on 26th September, 2006 and for condonation of delay of 929 days in applying for restoration. Notice of the applications was issued on 2nd September, 2009 to the contesting respondent no.2 M/s Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education & Sports Sciences. However, the petitioner applicant did not take steps for service of the notice. Another opportunity was given to the petitioner applicant on 11th December, 2009 to serve the respondent no.2. The petitioner however again did not take any steps. On 16th March, 2010 none appeared for the W.P.(C)7187/2003 Page 2 of 3 petitioner applicant before the Court; nevertheless the Court gave another opportunity to the petitioner to serve notice of the applications on the contesting respondent no.2 by all modes including through counsel / nominated counsel for the contesting respondent no.2 returnable for today. It was also clarified that upon failure of the petitioner, the applications shall be dismissed for non prosecution. 2. The petitioner applicant again did not take any steps save for filing the process fee which was returned under objection. The petitioner applicant did not remove the objections. Also, no steps were taken for taking the notice dasti or for serving the nominated counsel. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applications are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 4. It is also found that Rule had not been issued in the writ petition and only a notice to show cause had been issued. In the circumstances notwithstanding the negligence of the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner has also been asked to address on the merits of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner workman by this petition impugns the award dated 15th July, 2003 of the Labour Court holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent no.2 as a result of non renewal of contract of employment and that the same did not amount to W.P.(C)7187/2003 Page 3 of 3 retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court thus did not find the petitioner workman entitled to any relief. 6. The Labour Court found that the appointment of the petitioner workman with the respondent no.2 was ad-hoc, contractual and for a fixed period of two months or till regular appointees joined duty whichever is earlier and was terminable without assigning any reason. The Labour Court held that the petitioner workman had miserably failed to show that he was working with the respondent no.2 continuously since 4th September, 1990 as claimed by him and on the contrary found that the respondent no.2 had established the appointment of the petitioner workman for a period of two months only. 7. The aforesaid findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner workman has been unable to show that the view taken by the Labour Court is perverse or a view which no reasonable person could have reached or that the same is contrary to the record. There is therefore even otherwise no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th May, 2010 gsr