SC: Magistrates Should Not Record Prosecution Evidence in Sessions-Triable Cases  ||  Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines on Using ITRs to Assess Motor Accident Victims' Income  ||  Supreme Court: Citing AI-Generated Fake Precedents Amounts to Advocate Misconduct  ||  Bombay HC: Horse-Trading Rampant in Maharashtra, FIRs 'Washed' After Switching Sides  ||  Tripura High Court: Senior Citizens Cannot be Penalised For Failing to Follow Cases Online  ||  Delhi High Court: Parent Cannot Gain Advantage by Keeping a Child Against a Foreign Court Order  ||  Allahabad HC: Places of Worship Act Bars Conversion of Religious Character, Not State Acquisition  ||  Jharkhand HC: Single Instance of Mother-In-Law Abusing Daughter-In-Law Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  Madras High Court: No Appeal Lies Against E-Court Status or Adjournment Orders  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Judicial Officer Promotion Cannot be Denied on Complaint Without Disciplinary Action    

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Ram Raj and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (04 Jul 2022)

Order issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner would not act as a bar to approach the Labour Court individually/independently

MANU/DE/2246/2022

Labour and Industrial

The challenge in present petition is to an order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Delhi ('ALC'), in his capacity as Conciliation Officer and also to a notice issued to the Petitioner by the Presiding Officer, ('Labour Court') 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').

Under Section 2A of the ID Act, the Respondents can independently approach the Tribunal challenging their termination. Even if the impugned order has been issued by the ALC, the same would not act as a bar for the Respondents to approach the Labour Court individually/independently.

It cannot be said that, the issue raised by the Respondents herein is not an industrial dispute. It is the case of the Respondents that, there is a relationship of employer-employee between the Petitioner and the Respondents and as such they have sought regularisation of their services with the petitioner, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL).

It is also noted that, an Industrial Dispute with regard to 164 workers is already pending adjudication and there is no reason to deny the remedy of approaching the Labour Court independently by way of a fresh petition, by these four workers.

The Petitioner would be within its right to take all objections on the maintainability of the claim petition, on the grounds that there is no employer-employee relationship, the claim is a stale claim, the petition is barred by delay and laches, etc., which objections shall be adjudicated by the Labour Court. Petition dismissed.

Tags : DISPUTE   ADJUDICATION   AUTHORITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved