W.P.(C) 3689/2022 Page 1 of 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: July 04, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 3689/2022 & CM APPL. 12784/2022

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Adv. with

Ms.Raavi Birbal and Mr.A.K.Roy,

Advs.

versus

RAM RAJ AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Asha Jain Madan and

Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

(BHEL) with the following prayers:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002407

W.P.(C) 3689/2022 Page 2 of 10

case.”

2.

In substance, the challenge in this petition is to an order dated November 18,

2020, of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Delhi (‘ALC’, for short), in

his capacity as Conciliation Officer and also to a notice dated August 16, 2021,

issued to the petitioner in I.D.No.116/2021, by the Presiding Officer, CGIT-Cum

Labour Court- II (‘Labour Court’, for short) in pursuance to reference being made

to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute under Section 2A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’, for short). The order dated November 18,

2020, reads as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002407

W.P.(C) 3689/2022 Page 3 of 10

Dayal Upadhyay marg, New Delhi.”

3.

It is a conceded case, that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents

herein have filed a claim petition before the Labour Court on which notice has

been issued on August 16, 2021.

4.

The submission of Mr. Raj Birbal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along

with Ms. Raavi Birbal, for the petitioner is that the ALC could not have issued the

order dated November 18, 2020, advising the respondents to approach the Labour

Court directly under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act,

2010, rather the matter should have been sent to the appropriate government

regarding the failure of the conciliation proceedings with reasons and it was for the

appropriate government to apply its mind and exercise its power to refer the

dispute to the Labour Court or not. In other words, it is their submission that by

resorting to the impugned order dated November 18, 2020, the appropriate

Government has been denied the power to exercise its discretion for referring the

matter to the Labour Court.

5.

That apart, it is further stated that the claim is stale, as the respondents had

worked with a certain contractor till 2017, and also due to the fact that in the

absence of an employer-employee relationship, no remedy could have been availed

by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 against the petitioner. The only remedy, if any, they

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002407

W.P.(C) 3689/2022 Page 4 of 10

have is against their employer, i.e., the contractor. In support of their submission,

Mr. Birbal / Ms. Birbal have relied upon the judgments in the cases of National

Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 1 SCC 371, Nedungadi

Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455, and ITDC v. Delhi

Administration, 1982 LabIC 1309 Delhi.

6.

On the other hand, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, learned counsel for the

respondents would contest the submission made by Mr. Raj Birbal and Ms. Raavi

Birbal by stating that there is no illegality in the order passed by the ALC,

inasmuch as by the said order, the ALC has only referred the parties to the CGIT,

which remedy in any case, is available to the