Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Abdul Majid – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed by 33 Petitioners, who were working as maintenance staff in the ESI hospital.
3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that they had been working for several years with the ESI Hospital, however, sometime in the month of February, 2021, the Petitioners were informed that the new contractor M/s. Hindustan Prefab Limited-Respondent No.7 was engaged by the Hospital management. The said company has further sub-contracted the work of providing contractual labour to Respondent No.8-M/s. Global Enterprises. The new contractor having been awarded the said contract for providing maintenance staff, the Petitioners were terminated from their services on 16th February, 2021.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that since they have been working for several years, their services ought not to have been terminated, and they ought to have been considered for appointment by the fresh contractor. Reliance has been placed by the Petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118.
5. The Petitioners had made a repr
Workers' rights must be protected, especially during contractual transitions, and timely adjudication of claims in labor disputes is critical, particularly in pandemic conditions.
The court mandates improvements in tribunal infrastructure and timely appointments to facilitate effective case management, emphasizing the importance of operational efficiency.
Non-compliance with court orders can lead to further directions and requirements for explanation.
The court underscored the necessity for timely online access to CGIT proceedings, highlighting accountability and the need for transparency in managing labor disputes.
The court ruled that contractual employees cannot be replaced without valid justification, and mass termination does not constitute exceptional circumstances for bypassing the Industrial Disputes Act....
Labour Law – Reinstate the workmen - If legal position had changed, CPWD, being a Government Agency, could not have acted in a manner which is contrary to said order - Correct way of proceeding for C....
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to summon a party not originally involved in the reference, and any notice issued under such circumstances is invalid.
The court affirmed that references of industrial disputes by the government require a prima facie satisfaction that a dispute exists, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are restrict....
The High Court ruled that the CGIT has jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner for verifying workmen's entitlements to benefits under an award, clarifying that this falls within the scope of computing....
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
