The court held that the CGIT erred in dismissing the termination claim, as it contradicted its own interim award recognizing the claim's maintainability under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Deepti Gupta, Sri Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar, Ms. Pragati Mehrotra, Ms. Manish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kirti Dhar Tripathi, who appears for the respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6, Sri Amit Jaiswal, who appears for the respondent nos. 2 and 4 perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T., whereby the reference made has been rejected on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner was in excess of the reference order.

3. The facts leading to the present petition in brief are that the petitioner claims to be an employee of the respondent no. 3 and on account of some order being passed redesigning the job description of the petitioner, she agitated the same and based upon her application, a reference was drawn and the matter was referred to the C.G.I.T. for adjudication vide order dated 20.02.2021. The reference order is quoted herein below:

"1. Whether the action of the management of Axis Securities Ltd., to re-design the job description of the employee Ms. Renu Sharma due to closing of retail asset product is illegal and unjustified in eye of law or not?

2. If yes, as to what relief the concerned workmen is entitled to."

During the pendency of the reference, a fresh order came to be passed whereby the petitioner was issued a termination letter on 02.03.2021, discharging her services with effect from 02.03.2021, the said order is on record as Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. After passing of the said order, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 33 A read with Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that during the pendency of the proceedings an order adverse has been passed and as such, the same was also amenable to adjudication before the CGIT. It also bears from the record that an interim award came to be passed on 05.08.2022 accepting the version of the petitioner prima facie, and holding that the application/complaint under Section 33 A of the Act as filed by the petitioner was maintainable. An interim direction was also given to the respondent-Company to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month for alleged contravention of provisions of Section 33 A of the said Act. The said interim award became final inter-se between the parties and none of them have challenged it before the CGIT. When the final matter was taken up for hearing, the CGIT did not notice the interim award dated 05.08.2022 although the same was on record before him and proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to her termination order dated 02.03.2021 is beyond the scope of original reference, as such, could not be adjudicated by the CGIT.

4. Challenging the said order, the counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of Section 2 A and Section 33 A of the Act, the petitioner was well within her rights to agitate the issue with regard to termination before the CGIT as the same has passed during the pendency of the proceedings and contrary to the prescription contained under Section 33 A of the Act. He next argues that in any event, the issue with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 33 A of the Act has attained finality in terms of the award dated 5.08.2022 and as such, the Tribunal could not have passed the order as has been done by impugned order dated 26.09.2023. He further argues that while passing the award dated 5.08.2022, the parties were wrongly described and on account of said error, the respondents have not complied with the award and have not been paid the amount of compensation as was determined. It is further prayed that the application filed by the petitioner for correcting the typographical errors, is still pending and has not been adjudicated.

5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand makes a statement and accepts that in the interim aw