The court underscored the necessity for timely online access to CGIT proceedings, highlighting accountability and the need for transparency in managing labor disputes.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL.7416/2022 (for exemption from affirmed affidavit and court fee)

2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing court fees and duly affirmed affidavits along with the present petition. Binding the deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is granted. Insofar as the court fee is concerned, the same shall be deposited within one week after the reopening of the physical Court.

3. Application is disposed of in above terms. Registry to submit a report before the next date of hearing in case the court fees is not filed within the stipulated period.

W.P.(C) 2595/2022 & CM APPL.7415/2022 (interim relief)

4. The present petition raises two issues. The first issue relates to the status of the Petitioner's case before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter "CGIT") and secondly, relating to the non-availability of proceeding sheets, orders and other data relating to the pending cases of the CGIT on its website.

5. The background of the case is that the Petitioner/Workman (hereinafter "Workman") was working with Respondent No.5-ICICI Bank, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension Branch, New Delhi as a Deputy Manager. She was transferred to Sirsa branch, Haryana by the Respondent Bank and the same came to be challenged before this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(C) 10462/2021 titled Pooja Saroj v. Labour Commissioner & Ors.. Since the Workman did not join in Sirsa, the services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Bank. Allegedly, the reason why the Petitioner states that she could not join at Sirsa branch, was because her residence was in Delhi and she was also having some medical conditions due to COVID-19. However, the Bank decided to terminate her.

6. This Court had, vide order dated 1st October, 2021 in W.P.(C) 10462/2021 challenging the order of transfer, directed the Workman to avail of her remedies in according with law before the appropriate authority. The directions given in the said order read as under:

"5. Since the Petitioner has now been terminated from service, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of her remedies in accordance with law, before the appropriate authority. Needless to add that if the Petitioner approaches the authorities concerned, the authorities shall take up the matter on an urgent basis and decide it expeditiously within a period of 3 months from the date of first hearing."

7. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner approached the CGIT in October, 2021 vide DID No. 123/2021/1964 titled Pooja Saroj v. ICICI Bank. The matter was stated to be listed before the CGIT on 16th November, 2021 and on 4th January, 2022. On the last date of hearing, the matter is stated to have been simply adjourned to 6th April, 2022. Mr. Mishra, ld. counsel for the Workman, submits that the orders of the said dates are not available on the website of CGIT. Additionally, only one bench of the CGIT is stated to be functioning. Further he submits that the data relating to the CGIT in respect of number of cases and the pendency thereof are also not available on the CGIT website. He contrasts this position with the Labour Courts of GNCTD wherein the said Labour Courts are duly integrated with the eCourts India website and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and all the data is available online for the litigants. He submits that as per the Zero Pendency Courts Project report, which is a pilot project undertaken by the High Court of Delhi, there were various steps which were suggested to be taken in respect of Labour Courts, however the CGIT does no