Disposed

Shatrughan Singh and Ors. v. Huousing and Urban Development Corporation Limted & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/7745/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking mandamus against termination and reinstatement as security guards found the writ petition inadvisable since they had already raised an industrial dispute, deemed the effective remedy, and were refused reinstatement. Petitioners retained liberty to pursue the dispute in the concerned forum with a six-month decision deadline. The petition was disposed without relief in the writ.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition disposed of with liberty to pursue claims in the industrial dispute forum.

Shatrughan Singh and Ors. Vs Huousing and Urban… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7745/2017 & C.Ms. 31969; 33810; 33938; 35509 & 37828 of 2017

¶4

SHATRUGHAN SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha & Ms. Meenu Jha, Advocates

¶5

Versus

¶6

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMTED & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Anshul Chowdhary, Mr. Gauravjeet Narwan & Mr. Mohit Aneja, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr. Rohan Thawani, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 08.01.2018

¶10

Petitioners, who are eleven in number, seek a mandamus prohibiting the first respondent from terminating their service and in the alternative, seek reinstatement and direction to the newly appointed contractor i.e. respondent No.3 to employ all petitioners as Security Guards, as they have been working in respondent-Corporation on contractual basis for a period ranging from three years to thirty years.

¶11

While entertaining this writ petition, it was directed that status quo as on 1^st September, 2017 be maintained in respect of service of petitioners.

¶12

Learned counsel for first respondent on instructions submits that all

¶13

W.P.(C) 7745/2017

¶14

Page 1

¶15

these petitioners were relieved w.e.f. 31^st August, 2017 and in their place, respondent No.3 has provided duly qualified Security Guards, who are ex-servicemen, as O.M. of 9^th July, 2012, mandates that 90% of the Security Guards have to be ex-servicemen. Learned counsel for first respondent also informs that petitioners have raised an industrial dispute regarding subject matter of this petition.

¶16

Upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, I find that interim order of 1^st September, 2017 is of no avail, because petitioners already stood relieved on 31^st August, 2017 and question of their reinstatement in this writ petition is not being gone into, for the reason that petitioners have already raised an industrial dispute, which is an effective remedy and petitioners have rightly availed of it.

¶17

In view of aforesaid, this petition and applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to pursue the industrial dispute raised by them. It is expected that the concerned Forum will make all endeavours to decide petitioners’ claim within a period of six months from the date already fixed.

¶18

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for petitioners.

¶19

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶20

JANUARY 08, 2018 r

¶21

W.P.(C) 7745/2017

¶22

Page 2

Shatrughan Singh and Ors. v. Huousing and Urban Development Corporation Limted & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatrughan Singh and Ors. v. Huousing and Urban Development Corporation Limted & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Kumar Mohanty Vs Directorate of Estate and Ors.

Basal Verma Vs Medical Council of India and Anr.

Naveen Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Hindon River Mills Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Master Aarav Dewan Vs Modern School and Anr.

Jagdish Prakash and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Saroj Jain Vs Registrar of Corperative Societies and Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Anr.

Gokal Chand Mittal Vs U.O.I. & Anr.

Mrinal Ranjan Vs Airport Authority of India and Anr.

Dr. Tangula Ramakishan Rao Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pradeep Kumr Raghav Vs Telecommunication Consultants India Limited

Anil Kumar Vs Delhi Public Library & Ors.

Rajiv Agawal Vs M/S Central Electronics Ltd.