LPA 557/2010 Page 1 of 3 #58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 557/2010 MRS. MOHINI SETHI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Hemant Choudhri with Mr. S.W. Haider and Mr. Amit Mishra, Advocates versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, learned counsel for R-1 to 5. Mr. Aseem Malhotra, Advocate for R-8 to 20. % Date of Decision : 6th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the 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. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J CM 13993/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM 13995/2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA 557/2010 Page 2 of 3 Accordingly, application stands disposed of. LPA 558/2010 & CM 13994/2010 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 13th May, 2010 passed in WP(C) 8439/2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Appellant’s writ petition. 2. The Appellant-Petitioner had contended in the above writ petition that she is a senior citizen, over 70 years of age, who had never carried out any trade or business. She had further stated that she was never connected, in any manner whatsoever, with M/s. R.T. Export – respondent no. 7 herein and accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the recovery certificates dated 7th January, 2008 and 9th January, 2008. 3. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge had perused the labour court’s record and found that the Appellant-Petitioner had executed two letters of authorities dated 30th July, 1997 and 25th February, 2004 authorising an advocate and United Employers Welfare Association to represent her before the labour court. Accordingly, as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the case set up by the Appellant-Petitioner was at variance with the labour court’s record, he dismissed the writ petition. 4. Mr. Hemant Choudhri, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate various documents placed on record before respondent no. 2 herein, which clearly showed that there were individuals, other than Appellant, who LPA 557/2010 Page 3 of 3 were connected with the concern, M/s. R.T. Export. He further submitted that the signatures on the authority letters relied upon by the learned Single Judge, were forged and fabricated. 5. Keeping in view the serious allegation of forgery made by the Appellant-Petitioner’s counsel and the adverse consequences that flow from the impugned order and the fact that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the Appellant-Petitioner’s counsel, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 75,000/- to all the respondents- workmen and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. The costs shall be paid to all the respondent-workmen through counsel within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid costs are not paid within the stipulated period, the writ petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. 6. We further make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. List the matter before learned Single Judge on 13th September, 2010. 7. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal and application stand disposed of. Order dasti under the signature of Court Master. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 6, 2010 rn