Vinod Kumar v. MCD
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court held that a dispute over illegal termination during pendency of conciliation proceedings falls under Section 33A, where the Tribunal has exclusive adjudicatory power, not the Conciliation Officer. The Tubriunal's finding of lack of jurisdiction was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
What did the court decide?
Impugned award set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide issues afresh within three months.
What the court decided
$~16
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(C) 9174/2009
VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate versus MCD ....Respondent Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R % 08.01.2016
- The challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 the Constitution of India is to the award dated 24.03.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.11, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby it was held that the workman (the petitioner herein) was not entitled to any relief.
- Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) is that he was working as an approved regular substitute Safai Karamchari at Circle No. 19-D CSE Department, West Zone with the respondent (hereinafter referred as ‘the management’) since 1996. He was granted regular duty till 2002 and thereafter the management started creating artificial break in the service. He completed the duty for more than 240 days in a year and was entitled for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment along with all consequential benefits. When the management did not grant him those benefits, he filed a complaint through the union, namely, Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh, Delhi Pradesh for the regularization of his services before the Conciliation Officer, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Labour Department, Delhi. During the pendency of the said proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the management terminated his services w.e.f 10.02.2003 without seeking permission from
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of termination of services when such termination occurred during pendency of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer.
Whether the Conciliation Officer possesses adjudicatory power to determine abandonment of services or illegal termination under Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
VINOD KUMAR
- respondent
MCD
Coram
SUNITA GUPTA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court