All. HC: No Authority to Additional Chief Medical Officer to File Complaint Under PCPNDT Act  ||  Kar. HC: Cannot Prosecute Second Spouse or Their Family for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC  ||  Calcutta High Court: Person Seeking to Contest Elections is Deemed Public Interest  ||  Mad HC: In Absence of Prohibitory Order u/s 144 CrPC People Assembling and Demonstrating Not Offence  ||  Bom. HC: Legal Action to be Taken Against Doctor for Gross Negligence in Conducting Postmortem  ||  Bom. HC: Husband Directed to Pay Wife Compensation of Rs. 3 Crore for DV & Calling Her ‘Second-Hand’  ||  Delhi High Court Declines Relief to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case  ||  Bom. HC: Banks to Show Evidence to Borrowers Before Invoking Circular on Wilful Default  ||  Calcutta HC: Husband and Wife Collectively Responsible for Creating Congenial Atmosphere  ||  Madras High Court: Hostel Services for Girl Students and Working Women Exempted from GST Regime    

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