$~21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 10^th February, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 2595/2022

POOJA SAROJ

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Kamal Kumar Mishra, Mr.

Aditya Kadian and Ms .Pragya

Dubey, Advocates.

versus

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVT. OF

INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.

Kamal R. Digpaul, Advocates for R-

1, 3 & 4.

Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC, with Ms.

Sanjana

Nangia,

Advocate

for

GNCTD/R-2.

Mr. Abhinav Mukhi, Advocate for

ICICI Bank.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL.7416/2022 (for exemption from affirmed affidavit and court

fee)

2.

This is an application seeking exemption from filing court fees and

duly affirmed affidavits along with the present petition. Binding the

deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is

granted. Insofar as the court fee is concerned, the same shall be deposited

within one week after the reopening of the physical Court.

2022:DHC:532

3.

Application is disposed of in above terms. Registry to submit a report

before the next date of hearing in case the court fees is not filed within the

stipulated period.

W.P.(C) 2595/2022 & CM APPL.7415/2022 (interim relief)

4. The present petition raises two issues. The first issue relates to the

status of the Petitioner’s case before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal (hereinafter “CGIT”) and secondly, relating to the non-availability

of proceeding sheets, orders and other data relating to the pending cases of

the CGIT on its website.

5.

The background of the case is that the Petitioner/Workman

(hereinafter “Workman”) was working with Respondent No.5-ICICI Bank,

Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension Branch, New Delhi as a Deputy

Manager. She was transferred to Sirsa branch, Haryana by the Respondent

Bank and the same came to be challenged before this Court by way of writ

petition being W.P.(C) 10462/2021 titled Pooja Saroj v. Labour

Commissioner & Ors. Since the Workman did not join in Sirsa, the services

of the Petitioner were terminated by the Bank. Allegedly, the reason why

the Petitioner states that she could not join at Sirsa branch, was because her

residence was in Delhi and she was also having some medical conditions

due to COVID-19. However, the Bank decided to terminate her.

6.

This Court had, vide order dated 1^st October, 2021 in W.P.(C)

10462/2021 challenging the order of transfer, directed the Workman to avail

of her remedies in according with law before the appropriate authority. The

directions given in the said order read as under:

2022:DHC:532

period of 3 months from the date of first hearing.”

7.

Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner approached the CGIT in

October, 2021 vide DID No. 123/2021/1964 titled Pooja Saroj v. ICICI

Bank. The matter was stated to be listed before the CGIT on 16^th November,

2021 and on 4^th January, 2022. On the last date of hearing, the matter is

stated to have been simply adjourned to 6^th April, 2022. Mr. Mishra, ld.

counsel for the Workman, submits that the orders of the said dates are not

available on the website of CGIT. Additionally, only one bench of the CGIT

is stated to be functioning. Further he submits that the data relating to the

CGIT in respect of number of cases and the pendency thereof are also not

available on the CGIT website. He contrasts this position with the Labour

Courts of GNCTD wherein the said Labour Courts are duly integrated with

the eCourts India website and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and

all the data is available online for the litigants. He submits that as per the

Zero Pendency Courts Project report, which is a pilot project undertaken by

the High Court of Delhi, there were various steps which were suggested to

be taken in respect of Labour Courts, however