$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 14^th September, 2021

Date of decision: 5^th October, 2021

+

W.P.(C) 1987/2021 & CM APPL. 5794/2021

M/S FAIRWOOD INFRA AND SERVICES

PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ujjwal Jha, Advocate.

versus

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISIONER AND

ORS. & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Ms.

Asmita Singh, Advocate for R-2.

Ms. Yashodhara Burmon Roy and

Mr. Abdullah Tanveer, Advocates for

R-3.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 27

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

th January, 2021 passed by the Respondent No.1/Deputy Labour

Commissioner (hereinafter “Authority”) under The Delhi Shops and

Establishments Act, 1954 (hereinafter “DSE Act, 1954”) in Ref. No.

SE/ED/131/2020/5964 titled Sh. Atif Ali v. M/s. Fairwood Infra & Services

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. By the impugned order, the Authority under the Act has

held that, in view of the fact that the Claimant/Respondent No.3 herein was

drawing his salary from the registered office of the Petitioner Company

situated in Delhi, so also considering the Consultancy Agreement dated 18^th

May, 2018, the jurisdiction in the matter would continue with the Authority

under the DSE Act, 1954.

2021:DHC:3185

2. The Petitioner - M/s Fairwood Infra and Services Pvt. Ltd.

(hereinafter “Petitioner Company”) is a company having its registered

office at M-304, Dharma Apartment, Plot No.2, I.P. Extension, New Delhi-

110092, and is engaged in providing architectural services. The case of

Respondent No.3/Mr. Atif Ali (hereinafter “Employee”) was that he was

engaged to render services to the Petitioner Company as a Consultant in

respect of Design and Architecture, vide Consultancy Agreement dated 18^th

May, 2015. Under the said Agreement, a monthly fee of Rs.48,000/- was to

be paid to the Employee. He was appointed as an architect on 19^th July, 2015

with the Petitioner Company. His remuneration was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per

month. After serving a probationary period of three months, the Employee

had secured a permanent position with the Petitioner Company. However,

his grievance was that even after he was permanently appointed, the

Petitioner Company did not make payments of salary as agreed upon, and

kept delaying the same on one pretext or the other. On 16^th

3.

In response to the Employee’s claim petition, the Petitioner Company

took an objection of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the

establishment where the Employee was working is located in Noida, Uttar

Pradesh and registered under the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial

Establishments Act, 1962. It was averred that the Petitioner Company may

have its registered office in Delhi, but since the establishment where the

Employee is working is located in Noida, the DSE Act, 1954 would not

December, 2020,

the Respondent No.3/Mr. Atif Ali (hereinafter “Employee”) filed an

application under Section 21 of the DSE Act, 1954 with the Authority

praying for payment of arrears of salary in respect of outstanding dues of

Rs.25,49,148/-.

2021:DHC:3185

apply. It was also further argued that the case of the Employee would not be

liable to be entertained by the Authority located in Delhi and the claim has

to be rejected. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in

Bhandari Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. M.K. Seth & Anr. [(1988) ILR 1 Delhi 64].

Before the Authority, the Employee relied upon the Governing Law and

Dispute Resolution Clause of the Consultancy Agreement dated 18^th May,

2015 which stipulated that any dispute arising from or in relation to the said

Agreement shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of the competent courts in

New Delhi. The Authority rejected the Petitioner Company’s objection t