LPA/509/2010 of HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD Vs ARUN KUMAR & ORS
Parties
- HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD (PETITIONER)
- ARUN KUMAR & ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (1)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 509/2010
HINDUSTAN TIMES LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Seema Sundd and Ms.Shweta, Advocates
versus
ARUN KUMAR & ORS.
..... Respondents Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R R% 04.11.2016
C.M.24798/2016 (for delay)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
Review Pet.310/2016 & C.M.22678/2016
This petition urges the court to review the judgment disposing of LPA 509/2010 on 27.04.2016. Learned counsel points out that there is an factual error with respect to the lump sum amount mentioned in para 24 of the judgment. He submits that the reference –to the Single Judge recording the extent of back wages at `33 lacs according to the management is incorrect and relies upon the text of the order in that regard.
–The court notices that whilst undoubtedly an error nevertheless it has no impact on the final order to be made which is
contained in elaborated direction of para 25. In this regard, specifically, the court has not made any mention as to the total amount payable towards back wages. In case of any dispute, the concerned authority under law would be at liberty to proceed to determine the correct quantum of back wages for the period. The other error pointed out is with respect to reference to the date of superannuation. It is stated that the workman had superannuated on 19.12.2009 and in the circumstances, the direction to pay back wages after that date till the date of judgment is not warranted. Here, technically, the appellant may be correct but at the same time the court only is confined to the relief to the workman’s legal representatives to final amount of `5 lacs or 50% of the back wages, whichever was less.
In the circumstances, no facial error that warrants view has been disclosed. The review petition is therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NOVEMBER 04, 2016 rb
DEEPA SHARMA, J