* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 17.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 28.11.2025

+ W.P.(C) 13418/2018, CM APPL. 52259/2018, CM APPL. 5838- 39/2020

THE MANAGEMENT OF SH. MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL AND AYURVEDIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Bahl and Ms. Anshu, Advocates.

versus

MS. THRESIAMMA GEORGE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. N.D. Pancholi and Mr. Deepak Mayur, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/hospital, assailing the Award dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court–V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in ID No. 5233/2016, whereby the respondent/ nurse, was held entitled to full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits from the date of her termination till the date of her superannuation.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows-. The respondent/nurse was appointed as a staff nurse with the petitioner/hospital w.e.f. 15.04.1987. It is the respondent/nurse’s case that during the course of her employment, she was a member of the workers’ union and had actively supported the demand for implementation of the recommendations of the 5thCentral Pay Commission in respect of the employees of the petitioner/hospital. It is alleged that the petitioner/hospital attempted to pressurize her to resign from the union and to withdraw her support from the pending industrial dispute (ID No. 86/1998), but on her refusal to succumb to such pressure tactics, she was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.09.1998, without issuance of any chargesheet and without holding any domestic enquiry.

2.1 At the relevant time, an industrial dispute (ID No. 86/1998) relating to the pay scales and service conditions of employees of the petitioner/hospital was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. During pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner/hospital moved an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the ID Act), seeking approval of the dismissal of the respondent/nurse. The said application came to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2004 in OP No. 55/1999, whereby the approval sought by the petitioner/hospital was accorded upon consideration of whether the procedural requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act were satisfied.

2.2 Pursuant to the grant of approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the respondent/nurse on 26.11.2005raised an industrial dispute (ID No. 5233/2016) challenging her dismissal by filing a direct claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10 of the ID Act.The petitioner/hospital contested the proceedings and, inter-alia, raised a preliminary objection that the order dated 22.12.2004 passed in OP No. 55/1999 operated as res judicata and that the claim petition was barred. The petitioner/hospital further contended that the hospital, being a charitable institution, was not an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act, and that the respondent/nurse, being a staff nurse allegedly discharging supervisory duties, did not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

2.3 In view of the plea of res judicata, the Labour Court framed the following issue— “Whether the order dated 22.12.2004 in OP No. 55/99 operates as res judicata?”—and directed that the same be treated as a preliminary issue. Upon hearing both sides, the Labour Court vide a detailed order dated 01.06.2015 rejected the petitioner’s/hospital’s objection, holding that the approval under Section 33(2)(b) does not constitute adjudication on merits and cannot bar the subsequent industrial dispute challenging the dismissal.

2.4 Thereafter, evidence was led by both sides. The respondent/nurse examined herself as