Sunday, April 16, 2023
Saturday, April 8, 2023
Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) directs the Indian Statistical Institute to maintain status quo with respect to filling up the posts of Electric Attendant, Electrician, MTS, etc. till the final disposal of the Industrial Dispute
CGIT, Rouse Avenue, Delhi
18.11.2022
Central
Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) directs the Indian Statistical Institute
to maintain status quo with respect to filling up the posts of Electric
Attendant, Electrician, MTS, etc. till the final disposal of the Industrial
Dispute
In
the year 2012-14, several Cooks, MTS, Malis, Electrical Attendants, Electricians,
Plumbers, etc. were directly appointed by the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI)
on contractual basis.
The
ISI is statutory body constituted under the Indian Statistical Institute Act,
1959.
The
contract of the workers was renewed time and again till 28.02.2021. The workers
were entitled to be regularised in service but, instead of regularising the
services, the workers were outsourced to a contractor and were accordingly,
converted into ‘contract labour’.
Being
aggrieved by non-regularisation of their services, the workers raised an
Industrial Dispute by filling a Statement of Claim before the CGIT. During the pendency of the Industrial Dispute,
the ISI issued an Advertisement thereby inviting application for filling the
posts on which the workers were working. Accordingly, the workers (Krishan
Kumar & 24 others) filed an application before the CGIT thereby seeking a
direction to the ISI to keep 25 posts vacant till the disposal of the
Industrial Dispute.
Vide
Order dated 18.11.2022, the Hon’ble CGIT allowed the application with the
following directions: -
“So
far as the power of this tribunal with regard to grant of interim relief is
concerned, admittedly there is no distinct provision for grant of said interim relief
during the pendency of the proceeding But considering the circumstances of an
individual case the interim relief can be granted as incidental to the dispute
for adjudication as has been held in the case of Hotel Imperial vs. Hotel
Workers Union reported in 1959 LLJ(2)554 and in the case of Lokmat Newspapers
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shankar Prasad reported in (1999) 6SCC 275. The same view has
also been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of ONGC vs.
Transport And Duck workers Union and others reported in 2007(2)LLN 817. Thus
considering the apprehension expressed by the claimants and in order to prevent
the litigation from becoming infractous, it is felt just and proper to direct
the management No.1 and 2 to maintain status quo in respect of the
advertisement issued for filing up the post having similar nature of work as
discharge/by the claimants till disposal of the Industrial dispute. The
application for interim relief is accordingly allowed. Call the matter on 19.01.2023
For framing of issues.
[Krishan
Kumar & Ors. Vs. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., ID No. 180/2021,
vide Order dated 18.11.2022, CGIT, Rouse Avenue, Delhi]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile – 9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
A cleaner (Group-C Employee) working in Delhi Jal Board is entitled to salary as per the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission – Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court
16.11.2022
A cleaner (Group-C Employee) working in Delhi Jal Board is entitled to salary as per the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission – Delhi High Court
Sri
Prem Ram was appointed by Delhi Jal Board as a cleaner on 31.03.1977. He was
entitled to receive salary as per the recommendations of the Central Pay
Commission. The said benefit was illegally denied by Delhi Jal Board to Sri
Prem Ram.
Being
aggrieved, Sri Prem Ram raised an Industrial Dispute [ID No. 126/1999] before
the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. Vide Award dated 23.12.2002, it was declared by
the Industrial Tribunal that Sri Prem Ram is entitled to receive salary as per
the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission.
Delhi
Jal Board, instead of implementing the Award dated 23.12.2002, challenged the
same by filing a writ petition [WP (C) No. 7994/2005] before the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court. Vide Order dated 16.11.2022, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed
the writ petition filed by the Delhi Jal Board and, accordingly, upheld the
Award dated 23.12.2002.
[Delhi
Jal Board Vs. Its Workmen (Sri Prem Ram) etc., WP (C) No. 7994/2005, decided on
16.11.2022, Hon’ble Delhi High Court]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile – 9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
Delhi High Court directed CBSE to pay full wages to a daily wager w.e.f. 04.07.2017 (i.e., the of Award passed by the Ld. Labour Court) under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Delhi High Court
21.12.2022
Delhi High Court directed CBSE to pay full wages to a
daily wager w.e.f. 04.07.2017 (i.e., the of Award passed by the Ld. Labour
Court) under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 21.12.2022
are reproduced below for ready reference: -
“4. The grant of relief under Section 17 B of the ID
Act depends only on the factum of the respondent being unemployed and there being
an award in his favour directing his reinstatement. In the present case, once
the respondent has categorically stated on affidavit that he is not gainfully
employed and has no other source of livelihood, there is no reason for this
Court to disbelieve his stand and that too when the petitioner has, without
bringing on record any material, baldly denied these averments.
5. In these circumstances, this Court has no other option
except to accept the respondent’s stand that despite his best efforts, he
continues to be unemployed and does not have any source of livelihood. The application,
therefore, deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed.
6. The petitioner is directed to release the arrears of
the minimum wages/last drawn wages, whichever may be higher, to the respondent,
with effect from 31.05.2018, the date when the present writ petition came to be
filed. The arrears in terms of this order will, within six weeks, be released
in favour of the respondent. This will, however, be subject to the respondent
filing an affidavit, within one week, undertaking to refund the differential
amount, if any, between the amount towards the minimum wages and the last drawn
wages, in case, the petitioner were to succeed in the present petition.
7. It is further directed that arrears in terms of this
order will be paid on or before 31.01.2023 and future payments from February,
2023 will be made by the petitioner on or before 10th of every month. It will
be open for the respondent to forward his bank account details to the learned
counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to make the remittance
through it’s bank account itself.”
[CBSE Vs. Kuldeep, W.P.(C)
6480/2018, date of order 21.12.2022, Delhi High Court]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A,
First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New
Delhi - 110014
483,
Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi
High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile
– 9891403206
Landline
– 011 - 35554905
Email
– anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
Whether Archaeological Survey of India is an ‘industry’, as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or not?
Delhi High Court
21 December 2022
Whether Archaeological Survey of
India is an ‘industry’, as defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, or not? – Delhi High Court held yes, Archaeological Survey of India
is an ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[Archaeological Survey of India vs
Presiding Officer, CGIT & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 8154/2005, decided on
21.12.2022, Delhi High Court]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First
Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2,
Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi-110003
Mobile –
9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Sunday, February 5, 2023
15 days unauthorized absence from duty by a DTC conductor (Rameshwar Dayal) – The conductor was suffering from acute dysentery – In 1992 the conductor was removed from service by DTC – Delhi High Court held the removal from service as illegal and directed DTC to pay all the consequential benefits
19.01.2023
Delhi
High Court
15
days unauthorized absence from duty by a DTC conductor (Rameshwar Dayal) – The conductor
was suffering from acute dysentery – In 1992 the conductor was removed from service
by DTC – Delhi High Court held the removal from service as illegal and directed
DTC to pay all the consequential benefits
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
[DTC
Vs. Rameshwar Dayal & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 6347/2006, Delhi High Court, decided
on 19.01.2023]
Anuj
Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A,
First Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New
Delhi - 110014
483,
Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi
High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile
– 9891403206
Landline
– 011 - 35554905
Email
– anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
Monday, January 16, 2023
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court
20 December 2022
Delhi High Court
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Section 10 - Delay in filing writ petition seeking 7th CPC salary is no ground to deny arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 – Delhi High Court
In the year 2022, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, PGT (Physical
Education), filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) 6841/2022] seeking salary as
per 7th CPC in terms of Section 10 of the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973.
The petition was
opposed by the Lions Public School, Delhi, on the ground that the writ petition
was belated and, therefore, the arrears of salary can only be paid for a period
of 3 years preceding the date of filing the writ petition.
Delhi High Court, vide
Order dated 20.12.2022, allowed the writ petition filed by Mr. Verma and held
that delay in filing a writ petition is not a valid ground for denying arrears
of salary to an employee w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The directive paragraph of the Order
dated 20.12.2022 is reproduced below for ready reference: -
“26. The issue
also arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya
Bharati School v. Directorate of Education & Ors., in LPA No.
541/2018 decided on 16.09.2022 and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Keraleeya Samajam and Another (supra), the Division Bench held that
limiting the claim of arrears to three years prior to filing the writ petition
is untenable in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held
that the School did not comply with the directions and obligations when it was required
to do so by revising the salaries in accordance with Section 10(1) of the
DSE&R on account of the revision under 6th CPC and now due to lapse of
time, it cannot take away the benefits because of its own recalcitrance to
comply with Government’s directions and statutory obligations. Non-compliance
over a long period would not create any special equities in favour of the
School and it does not get absolved of its statutory obligation to pay salaries
in terms of 6th Pay Commission recommendations, as pay revisions in terms of
Pay Commissions’ recommendations is a matter of public policy, with the
objective of ensuring that with passage of time, purchasing power of the
Government employee is not denuded by inflation and other relevant factors.
Even in Shikha Sharma (supra), this Court has directed release of
arrears under 6th CPC to the Petitioners in the said case without any
restrictions/limitation of three years prior to the filing of the writ
petitions and in fact, has also directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum
with a further direction that on failure to pay the amounts within six months
as directed by the Court, the School will incur a liability of payment of a
higher rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum on the arrears of both 6th and 7th CPC.
Both the contentions of the School are thus rejected.”
[Mukesh Kumar
Verma Vs. Lions Public
School & Ors., W.P. (C) 6841/2022, decided on 20.12.2022]
https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php
Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
D-26/A, First Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi - 110014
483, Block-2, Lawyers
Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
Mobile – 9891403206
Landline – 011 - 35554905
Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)