Jaya Sarkar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Jaya Sarkar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned communication dated 03/05 February, 2020 set aside; Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol directed to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with law, with any delay-condonation application to be considered leniently in terms of the order dated January 3, 2020 in WPA 23301 of 2019; writ petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol is the appellate authority under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013, competent to entertain the petitioner's appeal against the order passed under that Act.

Court's answer

From the notification dated 4th May, 2016 (S.O. No 1632 (E)), issued under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 appointing the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Additional Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and all Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners (Central) as appellate authority for industrial establishments under the control of the Central Government or a Railways administration or a major port, mine or oilfield, it is clear that all Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners (Central) have the power to act as the appellate authority to deal with appeals under the Act of 2013.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned communication dated 03/05 February, 2020 by which the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol refused to register the petitioner's appeal is contrary to the notification dated 4th May, 2016 and is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.

Key takeaways

The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol is directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.ratio¶22
If the petitioner prefers an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, it shall be considered leniently by the appellate authority in terms of the order passed by this Court on January 3, 2020 in WPA 23301 of 2019.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jaya Sarkar, an employee of the Indian Railways, aggrieved by an order passed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, who intimated that he was not the appellate authority under the Act. Relying on Rule 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 and the notification of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 4th May, 2016 (S.O. No 1632 (E)) issued under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, whereby the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Additional Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and all Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners (Central) were appointed appellate authority for industrial establishments under the control of the Central Government or a Railways administration or a major port, mine or oilfield, Amrita Sinha, J. held that all Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners (Central) have power to act as the appellate authority to deal with appeals under the Act of 2013. The impugned communication dated 03/05 February, 2020 was set aside as contrary to the notification dated 4th May, 2016; the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol was directed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law; and any application for condonation of delay was to be considered leniently in terms of the order dated January 3, 2020 in WPA 23301 of 2019. The writ petition stands disposed of.