SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Chetan Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1946 of 2021 & CM 5673 of 2021 (for ex-parte interim relief)
Decided On : 26-07-2022




Service conditions of employees must remain unchanged during the pendency of proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal as mandated by Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Petition seeking to maintain status quo of service conditions during the pendency of an industrial dispute pending before the Tribunal - Court held that conditions of service shall remain unchanged as per provision of Section 33. (Paras 5-6)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Court can direct parties to maintain status quo without interfering with merits of the case pending before the Tribunal. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the court's direction to maintain status quo in their service conditions amidst a pendency of an industrial dispute regarding their employer-employee relationship, which is being adjudicated before an Industrial Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that, according to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners' service conditions must remain unchanged while the matter is pending.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners’ service conditions could be altered during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, service conditions cannot be changed to the detriment of employees during ongoing tribunal proceedings.

Result: Petition disposed of, maintaining status quo.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek status quo on service conditions (Para 1)
2. arguments on status quo and employer-employee relationship (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. section 33 protects service conditions during disputes (Para 5 , 6)
4. court maintains status quo until tribunal's decision (Para 7)
5. writ petition disposed with observations (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been filed seeking following prayers:

    "a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to maintain status quo in the service condition of the Petitioners and not to terminate their services during the pendency of the industrial dispute; and

    b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 3 to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator and decide the complaint under section 33 a in an expeditious manner;

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after filing of this petition, a reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made and now the matter is pending before the Industrial Tribunal bearing ID No.33/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that their prayer is only confined to the extent that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, their service conditions should remain unchanged.

3. However, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that there is no relation of employer-employee between them, is the subject matter to be adjudicated before the Industrial Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in any case, the respondents are bound by law.

5. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifically provides that if the matter is pending before the Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an Arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal, no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding.

6. A bare reading of Section 33 makes it clear that if a matter is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the conditions of the service of the workman involved in such proceedings shall remain unchanged.

7. Since the matter is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the conditions of service of the petitioner workman shall remain unchanged and status-quo shall be maintained. However, no expression made herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case. Parties are at liberty to raise their contentions before the Industrial Tribunal.

8. With these observations, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top