Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Ramesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1530 of 2022 & CM Appl. 4384 of 2022
Decided On : 28-01-2022
Employment rights are protected during pending industrial disputes, and any alterations to conditions must adhere to statutory guidelines, ensuring long-serving employees get due consideration.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Pending industrial disputes - The petitioners, part-time sweepers employed with a bank, challenged the delay in adjudicating their disputes for over a decade before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, amid new recruitment advertisements by the bank. Factually, the petitioners claimed preference for the new positions due to their longstanding service. The court ordered adherence to Section 33, allowing eligible petitioners to apply for recruitment and directing the bank to consider age relaxation for those working longer. (Paras 2-3, 5-8)
(B) Employment - Rights of employees - The court emphasized that service conditions of the petitioners cannot be altered during pending disputes, affirming the necessity to comply with statutory requirements in industrial matters. (Paras 7-8)
Findings of Court:
The court directed that eligible petitioners be allowed to apply for recruitment, and the bank should consider age relaxation for others based on their long service. The tribunal was ordered to expedite the resolution of ongoing disputes.
Issues: Main issues included the petitioners' entitlement to preference in new recruitment and the implications of statutory provisions on their service conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that service conditions cannot be altered during pending disputes and emphasized adherence to statutory provisions, thereby upholding employees' rights.
Result: Petition disposed of in terms outlined.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed by 44 part-time sweepers who are employed with the Respondent No. 3- Punjab National Bank. The grievance of the Petitioners is that their industrial disputes have been pending for more than 10 years before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, and the same are not being adjudicated upon. It is submitted that recently, there are no hearings being held in CGIT-1, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi due to lack of quorum. In the meantime, a fresh advertisement dated 26th December, 2021 has been issued by the Bank for the recruitment of 188 part-time sweepers. Thus, the Petitioners- who are 44 in number- pray that they ought to be given preference in the recruitment to be undertaken, in response to the said advertisement.
3. The said advertisement has been perused by the Court. As per the said advertisement dated 26th December 2021, the Bank has called for applications for recruitment of 188 part time sweepers. This Court on the last date of hearing, considering the fact that a large number of part time sweepers are being recruited by the Bank and that the Petitioners were working with the bank for several years, asked the ld. Counsel for the Petitioners to place on record a chart containing the following details:
"1. Name, address and complete contact details of the Petitioners.
2. Age, Date of Birth along with the proof of Date of Birth of the Petitioners.
3. Whether or not the Petitioners fall in any of the categories such as SC/ST/OBC/EWS/Persons with Special Abilities?"
4. The said chart has been filed and reveals the following facts:
i. Petitioner identified at S. No. 14, 15, 28, 29, and 33 of the said document i.e., Mrs. Rakhi w/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Akash S/o Shri Ajnash, Mr. Akash Kumar S/o Shri Anod Kumar, Mr. Harkesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishan, Mrs. Preeti Mehraliya W/o Shri Deepak Kumar are within the age limit of 29 and they all belong to Balmiki- Schedule Caste category.
ii. That 27 Petitioners fall within the age bracket of 29-45.
iii. That 10 Petitioners fall within the age bracket of 46 to 55 years.
iv. That 2 Petitioners fall within the age bracket of 56 to 59 years.
5. As per the said advertisement which has been issued by the bank, the age limit condition has been fixed at maximum 24 years as on 1st July 2021. However, there is a 5 year relaxation in respect of applicants belonging to the Schedule Caste. Thus, in terms of the chart all those Petitioners who would qualify straightaway the age limit under the said advertisement could be permitted to file their application in response to this advertisement on or before 10th February, 2022.
6. Insofar as the other Petitioners between the age of 29 to 45 are concerned, the Bank could as to whether the age limit could be relaxed and whether some preference could be given to these Petitioners who are working with the Bank for a long time in view of the special circumstance of the present case.
7. In any event, Mr. Arora, ld. Counsel for the Bank submits that during the pendency of the industrial dispute, which has already been raised by the Petitioners, their service conditions cannot be altered in view of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is his submission that the Bank does not intend to alter their service condition or take any steps for termination of the Petitioner without following the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. In the backdrop of the above factual position, accepting the said statement given on behalf of the bank, the following directions are issued:
1. Insofar as all the Petitioners are concerned, the Bank shall scrupulously adhere to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Insofar the Petitioners who are automatically eligible in terms of the advertisement are concerned, they shall be permitted to put in their applications on or before 10th Febr
