Dismissed

Chandan Swain v. M/S Victoria Construction Chemicals

Delhi HC7 Jul 2017W.P.(C)/5525/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition assailed an Industrial Disputes Act award where the Labour Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily left service in 2009, thereby causing his own termination. The High Court observed that the legal notice filed by the petitioner expressly stated he left due to outstanding dues, finding no infirmity in the award. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition dismissed; no damages or other relief granted.

Chandan Swain Vs M/S Victoria Construction Chemicals — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5525/2017 & CM No.23238/2017

¶4

CHANDAN SWAIN .....Petitioner Through Mr. Kailash Pandey, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S VICTORIA CONSTRUCTION CHEMICALS ..... Respondent Through None

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

% 07.07.2017

¶10

Vide the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned award dated 27.2.2017 of the Labour Court-X in ID No. 1332/16, vide which the reference made vide order dated F.No.C-95/LO/NDD/2013/101/551 dated 4.9.2013 under Section 10 (I) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the effect whether the services of Sh. Chandan Swain had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if so, to what relief was he entitled and what directions were necessary in this respect was referred and answered by the award dated 27.2.2017 to the effect that the workman was not entitled to any relief, it having been held vide the impugned award in relation to issue no.1 to the effect that the workman himself in paragraph no.6, had given a notice (Exhibit MW1/1A) , copy of which is placed on record and stated that having no option he left the respondent company in January, 2009

¶11

after having failed to impress upon the respondent to clear his outstanding dues.

¶12

Vide the petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of this impugned award dated 27.2.2017 apart from seeking the litigation costs and such other orders that may be necessitated.

¶13

A perusal of the legal notice dated 22.9.2009 which is stated to be the document Ex.MW1/1A considered in issue no.1 vide the impugned award indicates that vide paragraph no.6 thereof it has specifically been stated on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel to the respondent herein upon

¶14

“that having no option left behind in January, 2009 and after having failed to impress upon the respondent to clear his outstanding dues”

¶15

it is apparent, as rightly held vide the impugned award qua issue no.1 to the effect that the services of the workman had never been terminated by the management and that it is the workman who had himself had left the services of the management on 1.1.2009.

¶16

“In these circumstances, it is held that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned award dated 27.2.2017 in ID No. 1332/16.” As regards the prayer for recovery of outstanding dues, the petitioner may seek appropriate redressal in accordance with law.

¶17

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

ANU MALHOTRA, J

¶19

JULY 07, 2017 mw

Chandan Swain v. M/S Victoria Construction Chemicals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Swain v. M/S Victoria Construction Chemicals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb-Uddin & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Renuka B. Salwan Vs Bureau of Indian Standards & Ors.

Ashok Sikka Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ravi Chandra Prakash Vs Supreme Court of India and Anr.

Young Women Christian Association of Delhi Vs Anokhey Lal

The Management of Brij & Co. Vs Its Workman Vijay Kumar Jha

Result Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tej Pal Singh & Anr.

M/S. Joban Sales & Anr. Vs Salig Ram

M/S.Paradise Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rohit Sharma & Ors. Vs the High Court of Delhi & Ors.

The Director (Admn.) Nat.Airpo Vs Suresh Kumar & Anr.

All India Equality Forum Vs UOI & Ors.

State Bank of Patiala and Ors. Vs State Sector Bank Employees Association & Ors.

Superwell Services Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr.