Partly allowed

Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Sushil Jha & Anr.

Delhi HC21 Feb 2019W.P.(C)/2752/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders closing its right to file a written statement under the Industrial Disputes Act. Court set aside closure orders and rejection of recall on consent, subject to costs of Rs.50,000 payable from amounts already deposited by the petitioner along with interest.Petitioner's right to challenge the underlying regulatory certificate on merits was left open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 5th January, 2016, 25th November, 2016 and 16th December, 2016 were set aside; Labour Court directed to take on record the written statement; Registered amount of Rs.50,000/- wit

Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Sushil Jha & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2752/2017 & CM No.11956/2017 (for stay)

¶4

JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Birendra Mishra, Adv. with Ms.Ponam, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

SUSHIL JHA & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.Syed Sajad Ali, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 21.02.2019

¶10

Vide the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/management impugns the Certificate dated 25^th February, 2015 issued under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), as also the orders dated 26^th March, 2015, 5^th January, 2016, 25^th November, 2016 & 16^th December, 2016 passed by the learned Labour Court-X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the petitioner’s right to file the written statement stands closed.

¶11

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner states on instructions, that at this stage he does not press the prayer for quashing of the certificate under Section 2A of the Act, but he seeks a direction that the written statement already filed by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, be taken on record. He however seeks liberty to challenge the aforesaid certificate at a later stage, if

¶12

the need so arises.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions from the respondent no.1 who is present in Court, states that in order to shorten litigation, he does not now oppose the petitioner’s limited prayer for taking on record the written statement already filled before the learned Labour Court but states that the same may be granted subject to appropriate costs.

¶14

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the impugned order dated 5^th January, 2016 whereby the petitioner’s right to file written statement was closed as also the subsequent orders dated 25^th November, 2016 and 16^th December, 2016 whereby its application seeking recall of the order dated 5^th January, 2016 was rejected, are set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to the respondent. The learned labour Court is requested to take on record the written statement already stated to be filed by the petitioner and proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. As prayed for, the petitioner’s objection regarding the certificate issued under Section 2-A of the Act, is left open and the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same at a later stage, if the need so arises.

¶15

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that instead of the petitioner paying costs as directed, to the respondent, the amount of Rs.50,000/- already deposited with the Registrar General, be released in favour of the respondent towards costs. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to forthwith release to the respondent the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon.

¶16

The petition along with pending application, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶17

REKHA PALLI, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 21, 2019/aa

Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Sushil Jha & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagran Prakashan Limited v. Sushil Jha & 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

Dr J H T Kavya Vs National Board of Examinations & Anr.

Mr. Emmanuel Chinedu Nnaemeka Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sandeep Khanna & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Vishnu Pandey @ Tannu Pandey Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors.

Harsh Wardhan Jaju Vs Government of India and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Jaju Vs Government of India and Ors.

PNB Housing Finance Limited Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Rwa K-Block Mohan Park. through Its Secretary and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Mrs. Rita Biswas Vs State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Seniaray Vs Pushpa Rani & Others

Dayanand Aggarwal Thr.Lr'S Vs Alka Aggarwal

Pradeep Kumar Vs State & Others

State (Gnct of Delhi) Vs Om Prakash

Mrs. Nancy Panagat & Another Vs State & Another