Court affirmed that service conditions cannot be altered during the pendency of an industrial dispute without compliance with statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:-

"a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to maintain status quo in the service condition of the Petitioners and not to terminate their services by replacing them with outsourced workers; and

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 to comply with the direction/notice dated 01.07.2022 passed by Union of India through the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour and Employment; and

c. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 not to change the service conditions of the workmen during the pendency of the industrial dispute without following the procedure under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved as they are being forced by respondents to agree with the respondents for placing them under a contractor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an industrial dispute has already been raised and the matter is pending before the Conciliation Officer.

3. Order passed by the Conciliation Officer dated 01.07.2022 is as under:-

"File no. ALC-111/8/0L/ 161/2022 Date-01.07.2022

To

Sub: I.D./Complaint between the management of Delhi Cantonment Board and their workmen Ms Reena Kumari Gaur & 7 ors regarding Regularization.

Sir,

Please be informed that the matter will taken up for discussion at this office on 08.07.2022 at 12:00 Noon under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a view to investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and right settlement thereof.

You are hereby required to appear on the aforesaid date and time either in person or through an authorised representative who is competent to take appropriate stand on the relief sought for in the complaint in order to arrive at an amicable settlement. You may file any statement in reply along with all relevant papers/ documents in five copies on or before the date of discussion and give one copy thereof to the other side. No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceeding under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court.

In this connection attention of mgt. is drawn towards sec.33 of the ID Act. And advised to adhere the provision its letter and sprit and not to terminate services in order to avoid any untoward action."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar situation in W.P.(C) 9226/2022 titled Saraswati & Ors. vs. The Chief Electoral Officer, GNCTD and W.P.(C) 9645/2022 titled Kamlesh Panwar & Ors. vs. Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr., directions have been passed by this Court not to change the service conditions of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the petitioners are the direct employees of the respondent No.1.

6. Issue notice. Sh. Ankur Mishra, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

7. Sh. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel states that in fact the petitioners have already been placed under the contractor wherein an agreement was signed on 01.07.2022. However, learned Standing counsel submits that there is no change in