* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 8410/2009 % Date of Decision: 20 July, 2009 #M/s K.D. Auto Industries ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Dr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS $ Mr. Ram Pratap & Anr. .....RESPONDENTS ^ 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) This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 16.07.2005 passed by Mr. S.N. Gupta, POLC X, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 1 herein) with 50% back wages. 2 Heard. 3 This petition seeking to challenge the impugned award has been filed by the management after about 4 years of passing of the said award. Though the petitioner has filed an application being CM No.5289/2009 for condonation of delay in filing of the writ petition but the said application hardy justify the delay in filing of this petition. The only ground for condonation of delay taken in the application is that the petitioner was suffering from financial crises due to closure of his factory W.P.(C) No.8410/2009 Page 1 of 2 and also undergone major surgery due to which he could not file the petition in time. This hardly justify the delay on the part of the petitioner. 4 Though no limitation is prescribed for filing of a writ petition against an impugned award but it does not mean that the petitioner being the management will sleep over the matter for years and then suddenly wake up one day and decide to challenge the impugned award at its sweet will and try to justify the delay on the ground of alleged financial crises. The petitioner says in the application that he had undergone major surgery also as a reason for delay in filing of writ petition but neither the date on which he underwent the alleged surgery nor the nature of surgery is disclosed in the application. The plea of surgery taken in the application is not supported by any medical evidence and therefore I am not inclined to accept the same as a ground for condoning the delay. In my opinion, this writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and latches and cannot be entertained after about four years of the passing of the impugned award. 5 In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is dismissed and consequent thereto the main writ petition as well as stay application also stands dismissed as barred by delay and latches. JULY 20, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.8410/2009 Page 2 of 2