Through this petition the Petitioner has impugned order dated 03.2.2022 passed by. a Full Bench of NIRC in Appeal No. 12- A(134)/2021-K, whereby, while dismissing the appeal, order dated 30.3.2021 passed by the Single Member, NIRC through which the application of the Petitioner regarding recalling of order dated 03.9.2020 was dismissed, has been maintained.
2. At the very outset, we have confronted the Petitioner's Counsel as to exercise of any discretion in this matter under our constitutional jurisdiction against two orders of the forums below which have factually determined that no case for condonation of delay in filing of Application for recalling of the order of dismissal of the Grievance Petition in non-prosecution has been made out and Counsel has argued that since the lawyer, representing the Petitioner, had expired and therefore the application for recalling of the said order could not be filed within the limitation period of 30 days; hence, the petition be allowed by setting aside the two orders in question and the grievance petition be restored for its adjudication on merits. On the other hand, Respondents Counsel has opposed the petition and submits that no case of any indulgence is made out as facts have been concealed, whereas, the forums below have passed reasoned orders.
We have heard both the learned Counsel, and perusal of the record reflects that apparently the arguments of the Petitioners Counsel are belied by the very affidavit of the Petitioner filed in support of restoration application; Para 3 whereof reads as under: "3. That I say that I was not aware about the case was dismissed on 08.9.2020 as may Counsel was expired and in short time I cannot engage another Counsel who can file the applicant for recalling of order dated 08.9.2020, therefore, this Honourable Court may be pleased to condone delay to file applicant for recalling of order dated 08/09/2020 in the larger interest of justice."
3. Before us Petitioner's Counsel has argued that the delay was due to death of the earlier Counsel; however, from perusal of the aforesaid affidavit it clearly reflects that this is not the case.
Admittedly, it was in the knowledge of the Petitioner that the Grievance Petition stood dismissed as late as on 08,9,2020 and thereafter certified copy of the order was issued on 28.9.2020, whereas, the application for recalling of the dismissal order was filed on 27.10.2020. Admittedly, the Counsel for the Petitioner, then appearing before NIRC, had expired, much earlier in time, and therefore, the contention of the Petitioners' Counsel is apparently incorrect that delay of 4 days in filing of the Application for recalling was due to death of the Court of the Petitioner before the NIRC. Besides this no other reason has been assigned or argued for seeking relief in this Constitutional jurisdiction.
Lastly, we may observe that it is wholly wrong to consider that the Constitutional jurisdiction is designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely 'because in its opinion the decision is wrong. In that case, it would make the High Court's jurisdiction indistinguishable from that exercisable' in a full-fledged appeal, which plainly is not the intention of the Constitution-makers.
4. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the forums below in this Constitutional jurisdiction as apparently the conduct of the Petitioner does not warrant such interference; hence the petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.