(O&M) v. JAINENDRA GURUKUL & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate Present: Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. for the Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. for the respondents. JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) HARPREET KAUR CM-4257-CII CII-2026

1. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is In view of the averments made in the application, the same is In view of the averments made in the application, the same is In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.

2. The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from The date of hearing of the main case is preponed from

06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself. 06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself. 06.05.2026 and the same is taken on board for hearing today itself.

3. CM stands disposed of. CM stands Main case

4. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, 1), passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, 18.07.2025 (Annexure P whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the was allowed and delay of 1162 days was condoned. Limitation Act was allowed and delay of 1162 days was condoned. Limitation Act PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document 2026 in/and CM-4257-CII-2026 (O&M) CR-6207-2025 (O&M) 2

5. As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this As per the brief facts, the respondent earlier approached this 2023, which was dismissed vide order Court by way of filing CWP-12773-2023, which was dismissed vide order 2023, which was dismissed vide order Court by way of filing CWP dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-3),observing that there is a statutory a dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P lternate 3),observing that there is a statutory alternate remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.

5.1. he respondent filed an appeal against the order Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the order he respondent filed an appeal against the order Thereafter, t passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along dated 22.02.2021, passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Along dated 22.02.2021 was filed. with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay with the said appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay The said application was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2025 The said application was allowed by the District vide order dated 18.7.2025 by the District . This fact is not Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. This fact is not Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/ Judge, Panchkula, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/ has been accepted by the disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/- has been accepted by the disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/ disputed that the cost amounting to Rs.10,000/ rder dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, petitioner vide order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, rder dated 10.09.2025, passed by the District Judge, petitioner vide o Panchkula.

6. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has whereby the delay in filing the appeal was challenged the aforesaid order whereby the delay in filing the appeal was whereby the delay in filing the appeal was challenged the aforesaid order condoned by District Judge, Panchkula. condoned by District Judge, Panchkula.

7. the counsel for the parties and perused the I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the the counsel for the parties and perused the I have heard paperbook.

8. wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a The petitioner had wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a wrongly availed remedy by way of filing a The petitioner had civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of civil writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P-3). alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P alternative remedy vide order dated 14.3.2024 (Annexure P

9. Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal , an application for condonation of delay was filed. and along with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. , an application for condonation of delay was filed. and along with the appeal The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned The delay was though for a period of 1162 days but it has been condoned only with the conditional order of payment of costs of only with the conditional order of paym ent of costs of 10,000/-. PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document 2026 in/and CM-4257-CII-2026 (O&M) CR-6207-2025 (O&M) 3

10. Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the Today, counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District petitioner has accepted the costs before the Appellate Court i.e. District Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 Judge, Panchkula and this fact has been noted in the order dated 10.9.2025 aid Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which passed by the said Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which aid Court. Copy of the order is submitted in the Court which passed by the s is taken on record as Annexure-C. Registry to tag is taken on record as at the appropriate . Registry to tag the same at the appropriate place.

11. petition under Article 227 of the While deciding the revision petition under Article 227 of the petition under Article 227 of the While deciding Constitution of India, this Court observed that in a matter Constitution of India , this Court observed that in a matter titled as “M/s M/s Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others”decided on 30.8.2013 decided on 30.8.2013 Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others Standard Brands Limited v. Paras Ram and others revision petition to challenge the impugned passed in CR-90-2012 that the revision petition to challenge the impugned revision petition to challenge the impugned passed in CR order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepted in terms of the order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepte order is not maintainable where the costs have been accepte impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : - impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : conditional impugned order. The observations of the Court are as under : “xxxxxx “xxxxxx Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 Admittedly, it has been recorded in order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the passed by the trial Court that the costs amount has been paid by the the instant revision petition to challenge plaintiff. In view thereof, the instant revision petition to challenge the instant revision petition to challenge plaintiff. In view thereof, the impugned order is not maintainable. the impugned order is not maintainable. the impugned order is not maintainable. xxxxxx” xxxxxx”

12. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove is not maintainable and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present petition is not maintainable and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present and the ratio of the aforesaid order, the present since costs have been accepted by the petitioner. since costs have been accepted by the petitioner. since costs have been accepted by the petitioner.

14. Consequently, the present civil revision stands dismissed. Consequently, the present civil revision stands Consequently, the present civil revision stands Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20th March 2026 March 2026 /Paritosh Kumar Simran/Paritosh Kumar (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable : : : : Yes/No Yes/No PARITOSH KUMAR 2026.03.27 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this Judicial Record/Decree/Document