P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved