Wednesday, June 5, 2019

The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016, which repealed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) in entirety


In the year 2010, the Parliament of India, by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010), inter-alia, inserted/added sub-sections (2) and (3) to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The amendment became effective from 15th September, 2010.

Section 2A, post amendment, reads as under:-

"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute:-

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in Sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of three months from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)."

Section 2A(1) contains a deeming provision with respect to disputes connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of services of a workman. Section 2A(1) deems such a dispute of an individual workman to be an ‘industrial dispute’ notwithstanding that no other workman, or any union of a workman, is a party to the dispute.

Section 2A(2) enables a workman, whose services have been terminated, to make an application directly to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute pertaining to termination of his services. Sub-section 2 prescribes that such workman will have to first make an application to the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of the dispute and, on expiry of forty five days from the date of making such application, to directly approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. As a result, the workman stands exempted from awaiting the outcome of the conciliation and also the reference being made by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 2A(3) provides that application under Section 2A(2) should be made to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of termination of services of the respective workman.

In the year 2016, the Parliament of India passed the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 (No. 23 of 2016). The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 received the assent of the President of India on 06th May, 2016 and was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary, Part II—Section 1) on 09th May, 2016. The Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 repealed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No. 24 of 2010) in entirety.

Effect of the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 is that sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands deleted. Now the workman cannot approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal directly and will have to wait for the reference being made by the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Note
The Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003 (No. 9 of 2003), which became enforceable with effect from 22nd August 2003, inserted/added the following sub-section to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:-

"10. xxx

(4A) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9C and in the case of a dispute falling the scope of Section 2A, the individual workman concerned may, within twelve months from the date of communication of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes(Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, whichever, is later, apply in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court, tribunal, as the case may be, for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section(1)."

In view of Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, a workman in Delhi can directly approach Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of dispute pertaining to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service within 1 year of the passing of the termination order.

It may be noted that provisions similar to Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2003, have been made by the State Governments of Karnataka as well as West Bengal.

Anuj Aggarwal
Advocate
483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi – 110003
Mob – 9891403206

478-479, Lawyers Chamber,
Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi – 110054


Mob - 9891403206

Monday, June 3, 2019

Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Female)


30 May 2019, Delhi High Court (DB) – Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Female) – Prayer of interim relief not considered by the CAT – High Court directed the DSSSB to keep 1 post vacant during the pendency of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – High Court also declared that prima-facie the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation on account of her serving as a Guest Teacher since 2011.

Chanchal Rani Vs. DSSSB & Ors. [W.P. (C) 6383/2019, Date of Decision = 30 May 2019, Delhi High Court (Division Bench)]



Thursday, April 25, 2019

“What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75?”

According to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), the correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%). Whether correct answer is 28/3 (i.e. 9.33%) or 7/75 (i.e. 0.0933 %), will be decided by an Expert Committee – Appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [Sandeep Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board; O.A. No. 1294/2019; decided on 25.04.2019]

25th April, 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench New Delhi, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the aforesaid question and submit its report to the DSSSB.

Sandeep Kumar appeared in a written examination conducted by the DSSSB for appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit (Male) Post Code = 144/17. He scored 105 Marks but could not get selection because of 1 question i.e. Question No. 56 = What percent is 7 paise of Rs. 75? The Question was having 4 options i.e. (A) 28/3, (B) 3/28, (C) 7/75 and (D) “None of these”. Sandeep answered option ‘C’, whereas according to DSSSB, the correct answer is option ‘A’. 0.25 were deducted from the total marks of Sandeep on account of giving wrong answer. Being aggrieved, Sandeep approached the CAT by filing an Original Application [O.A. No. 1294/2019].

Anuj Aggarwal, Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha and Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, appearing for the applicant (Sandeep Kumar), submitted that the correct answer of the aforesaid question was option ‘C’ i.e. 7/75. It was also submitted that because of the arbitrary action of the DSSSB, the applicant was illegally denied appointment on the post of TGT Sanskrit.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed Member (A), hearing the Original Application, on 25.04.2019, directed the DSSSB to refer the question to an expert committee which shall examine the said question and submit its report to the DSSSB in a time bound manner.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

10 April 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17) – CAT issued notice to the DSSSB, NDMC, EDMC, SDMC as well as the Rehabilitation Council of India on account of their failure to fill all the vacancies of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17), which were advertised vide Advertisement dated 07.08.2017 [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]


Eighteen (18) qualified Special Educators filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, thereby seeking appointment on the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD (Post Code 15/17). The applicants had appeared in the written examination, as conducted by the DSSSB, but couldn’t qualify the same because of wrong examination procedure and defective question paper.

Anuj Aggarwal and Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, counsels for the applicants, submitted that in the last 7 years, the DSSSB has failed to fill even 35% of the aforesaid posts. DSSSB has till date filled only 547 posts out of 1,790 posts of Special Educator (Primary). Because of non-appointment of Special Educators, children with special needs (disabled children) have failed to enjoy their fundamental right of free & compulsory education as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

It was also submitted by the counsels for the applicants that the DSSSB received the requisition from the MCD on the basis of 6 independent disabilities i.e. MCD demanded candidates from 6 independent disabilities but the DSSSB acted contrary to the requisition by not specifying the same in the advertisement.

It was also submitted that in the written examination the question paper, which the candidates were required to answer, contained questions which were out of syllabus. Part-B of the said question paper consisted of questions from all the 6 different branches/specialization of disabilities. The aforesaid question paper clearly shows that a candidate who studied one branch of disability was required to answer questions which were never part of his study/course and, consequently, it was out of syllabus and beyond the scope of his study. It was, therefore, submitted that asking questions pertaining to hearing or mental retardation disability from a candidate who is specialized in teaching blind/low vision students, is not only illogical & illegal but also amounts to asking questions which are out of syllabus. The aforesaid mechanism of setting question paper clearly reflects the incompetency of the DSSSB.


Counsels for the applicants also submitted that the DSSSB arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the rules of game inasmuch as initially a candidate was required to pass Part-A as well as Part-B independently and acquire 40% marks in each section/part. However, subsequently, the DSSSB short listed the candidates by asking the sum total of the marks obtained by the candidate in Part-A as well as Part-B and, consequently, dispensed with the requirement of independently passing/qualifying each part/section.

The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to issue notice in the Original Application. The next date of hearing is 11.07.2019. [Reshma Parveen & Others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. [O.A. No. 1038/2019, Date of order = 10.04.2019]

Thursday, March 28, 2019

25 March 2019 – Delhi High Court (Division Bench) – Promotion to the post of Commandant in C.R.P.F. – Adverse A.P.A.R. – Marks awarded of “Good” but A.P.A.R. rating of “below good” given by the Reporting Officer – Reviewing Officer, in order to match the rating, slashed the marks by 50% - held, unacceptable and illogical – A.P.A.R. rating upgraded to “good” and directions given to C.R.P.F. to grant all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority – C.R.P.F. was also directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)]


Bijendra Singh Bhati, Deputy Commandant, CRPF, was given 5.26 marks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (A.P.A.R.) of the period from 01.04.2011 to 22.09.2011 by its Reporting Officer. 5.26 Marks falls in the slab of “good” rating but due to inadvertence, the Reporting Officer gave the rating as “below good”. The aforesaid mistake came to the knowledge of the Reviewing Officer at the time of review. Reviewing Officer, instead of upgrading the rating to “good”, slashed the marks to almost 50% in order to match the rating. The said “below good” rating resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Commandant.

Being aggrieved by the “below good” rating and denial of promotion, Bijendra Singh Bhati preferred a writ petition [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Anuj Aggarwal & Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, counsels for Bijendra Singh Bhati, submitted that Mr. Bhati is an excellent officer and has throughout remained outstanding. It was also submitted that the Reviewing Officer, instead of giving the grade of “good”, has wrongly slashed the marks by 50% and the said procedure was unheard of. Grades (like outstanding, very good, good or below good) are given on the basis of marks and the marks are not given (or matched) with the grade, which was erroneously done in the present case.

Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. S. Mehta, Delhi High Court, accepted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and, consequently, allowed the writ petition. Hon’ble Court held that the procedure of matching marks with the grades was unacceptable and illogical. Hon’ble Court directed the CRPF as under:-

“18. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28th July 2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2 to the extent that it rejects the Petitioner’s request for upgradation APAR for the period from 1st  April, 2011 to 22nd September, 2011 as “good” is hereby set aside.

19. A direction is issued to the Respondents to upgrade the APAR of the Petitioner for the aforementioned period 1st April, 2011 to 22nd September, 2011 to “good” and extend to him all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority within eight weeks from today. Correspondingly, the impugned notification dated 20th October, 2016, which failed to promote the Petitioner to the post of Commandant (2-IC) is set aside to that limited extent that the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders in that regard within a period of 12 weeks from today.

20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.”


Saturday, March 16, 2019

14 March 2019 – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) - Recruitment on the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code - 90/17) with 919 vacancies – Challenge to 5 questions asked by DSSSB in the written examination – CAT directed the DSSSB to refer the disputed 5 questions [question Nos. 44, 119, 182, 183 & 200] to an Expert Committee – Expert Committee shall give its report within 1 week – further steps in selection to be taken after the report of Expert Committee is obtained by the DSSSB


Vide Advertisement dated 20.12.2017, DSSSB invited applications, inter alia, for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Post Code = 90/17) with 919 vacancies. On 16.09.2018, written examination was conducted by the DSSSB. On 09.01.2019, final answer key was uploaded by the DSSSB wherein the answers/options to 5 questions [question Nos. 44, 119, 182, 183 & 200], as given by the DSSSB in the answer key, were wrong.

22 candidates, being aggrieved by the aforesaid 5 questions, challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, by way of 22 separate Original Applications (lead OA No. 580/2019).

Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the applicants, argued that the candidates/applicants should not suffer/penalized for giving the right answer. It was also argued that the text books, published by the Delhi Government itself, shows that the answers given by the applicants were correct answers/options.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy & Hon’ble Member (A) Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, directed the DSSSB to refer the disputed 5 questions to an Expert Committee, which shall give its report within 1 week. It was also declared/directed by the Hon’ble CAT that further steps in selection shall be taken by the DSSSB only after the report of Expert Committee is obtained by the DSSSB.




Saturday, March 9, 2019

08 March 2019 – Delhi High Court (Division Bench) – Special Education Teacher – Failure on the part of candidate in filling/bubbling the Application Form/OMR Sheet – Column in the OMR sheet pertaining to CTET qualification left blank – High Court directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of the candidate for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher [W.P. (C) No. 5777/2018; Date of Order = 08 March 2019; “Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Preeti Sharma & Anr.”]


Pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/13, Ms. Preeti Sharma applied for the post of the Special Education Teachers (Post Code 01/13). In the application form/OMR sheet, Ms. Preeti Sharma inadvertently left the CTET column blank despite the fact that she was CTET qualified and had CTET pass certificate prior to the prescribed cutoff date. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), consequently, rejected the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma. Being aggrieved, she preferred an Original Application (O.A. No.1383/2013) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Vide Order dated 21.02.2017, the said Original Application was allowed and the DSSSB was directed to consider the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma. DSSSB, instead of implementing the said Order dated 21.02.2017, challenged the same before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition [W.P. (C) No. 5777/2018].

Anuj Aggarwal & Tenzing Thinlay Lepcha, Advocates, appearing for Ms. Preeti Sharma, submitted that a bonafide mistake may not be awarded with the punishment of rejection of candidature. It was also submitted that there is acute scarcity of qualified Special Education Teachers in the Delhi Government Schools and, therefore, the candidature of a qualified candidate may not be rejected on such trivial ground.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi & Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Chawla, vide Order dated 08 March 2019, accepted the submissions made on behalf of Ms. Preeti Sharma. It was also observed by the Hon’ble Court that there is a dire need of appointing qualified Special Education Teachers in Delhi Government Schools. The Hon’ble Court directed the DSSSB to consider the candidature of Ms. Preeti Sharma for appointment on the post of Special Education Teacher.