Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Sh Horam - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11529/2021 & CM Appl. 35538-39/2021
Decided On : 07-10-2021
Labour Court - Summoning of Commissioner - Office Order No. AO/Engg.(HQ)/NDMC/2018/752 - Abid Ali Vs. MCD - State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma - [Order dated 17.09.2021, Order dated 30.09.2021]
Fact of the Case:
The South Delhi Municipal Corporation filed a petition challenging the orders passed by the Labour Court summoning the Commissioner, SDMC. The case arose from a claim filed by a workman regarding his regularization and pay scale, with the Labour Court repeatedly adjourning the matter and eventually summoning the Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Labour Court's practice of repeatedly adjourning the matter for 'clarification if any/order' was improper and contrary to settled law. It also criticized the failure to inform the Court of the workman's demise and the summoning of the Commissioner, stating that it was unwarranted and unsustainable.
Issues: Improper adjournment practice, failure to inform the Court of the workman's demise, unwarranted summoning of the Commissioner
Ratio Decidendi: The Labour Court's practice of repeatedly adjourning the matter for 'clarification if any/order' was improper and contrary to settled law. Failure to inform the Court of the workman's demise and the unwarranted summoning of the Commissioner were criticized.
Final Decision: The impugned orders summoning the Commissioner were set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to proceed to pass orders on the matter within 30 days. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner/South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter “SDMC”) challenging the impugned orders dated 17th September, 2021 and 30th September, 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (hereinafter “Labour Court”) in ID No.168/16 titled Shri Horam v. MCD, by which the Commissioner, SDMC has been directed to appear in person. The said orders read as under:
Order dated 17.09.2021
“Fresh memo of parties filed. Let the same be taken on record in terms of order dated 03.03.2020.
Today the case is listed for arguments. During arguments, Ld. AR for workman refers to Office Order No. AO/Engg.(HQ)/NDMC/2018/752 dated 22.11.2018 of Administrative Officer, Engineering Deptt. (HQ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002. This order has been passed after the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Abid Ali Vs. MCD in SLP (Civil) No.30994-31015/2011 in LPA No.126/2020.
Let Commissioner, concerned MCD shall appear in person to explain the reasons for not complying with judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for 24.09.2021.
Copy of the order be sent by Ahlmad of the Court to the office of the management.”
Order dated 30.09.2021
Ld. AR for management has moved an application for exemption from personal appearance of Commissioner, SDMC through mail to the Reader of this Tribunal.
Application is perused.
No specific reason has been mentioned regarding non appearance of commissioner before this Tribunal. This Tribunal is not satisfied regarding the reasons mentioned in the application. Only lame excuses have been taken on behalf of management.
Ld. AR for workman has strongly objected for non appearance of Commissioner submitting that case is more than 10 years old and management is unnecessary delaying the matter.
Ld. AR for management undertakes that he will ensure the compliance of previous order.
As requested, now, to come up for compliance of previous order/further arguments on 12.10.2021 at 12 noon.”
3. The impugned orders arise out of a statement of claim filed by Shri Horam/Respondent/Workman (hereinafter “Workman”), who claimed that he was initially appointed as a beldar in 1975, then was promoted to the post of a fitter on 15th November, 1980 and was regularized on 14th September, 1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 196 - 232/-. The case of the Workman is that he was wrongly regularized in this pay scale. The Workman retired on 31st December, 2009. However, as per the counsel for the Workman, this claim was made for the first time in 2006 before the Commissioner, MCD.
4. The Workman then filed his claim before the Labour Court on 4th May, 2012, after terms of reference being framed vide Reference No.F.24(159)ND/663/2011/Lab/2114 dated 14th December, 2011. In response to the claim, the erstwhile MCD, prior to its bifurcation, took the stand that the Workman has retired and, in any case, he was promoted to the post of assistant fitter with effect from 1st April, 1981 and he had not raised any protest whatsoever at any point of time. The MCD stated that the Workman raised this complaint for the very first time in 2011, and post retirement, after a lapse of 30 years from his regularization. This matter is now pending before the Labour Court. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the impugned orders have been passed, directing the personal appearance of the Commissioner, SDMC.
5. A perusal of the various orders of the Labour Court shows that the proceedings that took place are as under:
(i) 19th February, 2021: The evidence having been led, final arguments commenced.
(ii) 1st March, 2021: Written arguments were filed by both parties, the matter was adjourned for clarification if any/order for 15th March, 2021.
(iii) 31st March, 2021: The matter was again adjourned for arguments/clarifications to 30th April, 2021 and the order recorded that there w
The Labour Court's practice of repeatedly adjourning the matter for 'clarification if any/order' was improper and contrary to settled law. Failure to inform the Court of the workman's demise and the ....
Unjustified summons of public officials undermine their duties; Labour Court must expediently pronounce decisions after hearings.
Unauthorized statements by public officials cannot be relied upon for judicial decisions, necessitating remand for proper adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court reaffirmed the limits of Article 226 jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for clear evidence when disputing determined pay scales for workmen.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of long-serving employees to be treated as permanent regular employees and the inapplicability of new recruitment conditions to exi....
The court upheld the Tribunal's awards for employee regularization, emphasizing the prohibition of unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, while clarifying the need for state approv....
The court emphasized that service of summons must be on authorized representatives of corporations, and that labor courts should properly assess merits, not issue mechanical orders.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before Labour Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
