Disposed

Ravi v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Dtc & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/9852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to exempt filing certified copy of annexures allowed. Writ Petition impugning Labor Commissioner's order closing proceedings due to petitioner's permanent status. Court directed adjunction of claim petition for adjudication pending full record.

What did the court decide?

Directed Labor Commissioner to adjudicate Claim Petition in accordance with law; all pending applications disposed.

Ravi Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director Dtc & Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~127

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9852/2024, CM APPL. 40396-97/2024 RAVI .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Advocate (Appearance not given)

¶5

versus

¶6

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR DTC & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, DTC with Ms. Aliza Alam, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 19.07.2024 CM APPL. 40396/2024 [Exemption from filing certified copy of annexures]

¶12

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶13

The Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

CM APPL. 40397/2024 [Exemption from filing complete record filed before Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer]

¶15

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶16

The Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

W.P.(C) 9852/2024

¶18

The present Petition has been filed impugning the Order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, Pusa Road, Delhi in I.D./CD/CO/416/23 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’].

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that inadvertently a wrong statement was made before the Labour Commissioner

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:48:26

¶21

which led to the passing of the Impugned Order. Therein, the Petitioner/Workman stated that he was a permanent employee of the Respondent/Corporation. Based on which, the Labour Commissioner directed that since he is a permanent employee, he does not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, the proceedings filed by the Petitioner/Workman were closed.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the Respondent/Corporation affirms this position. She seeks to rely upon the Termination Order dated 22.01.2014 which clearly sets out that the services of the Petitioner/Workman were terminated under Clause 9(a)(i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Services), Regulation 1952 which are only applicable to the probationary employees and which state that during the period of probation, a probationer can be terminated without assigning any reasons therefrom.

¶23

With the consent of the parties, this Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal today.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the present Petition is disposed of directing the Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer to adjudicate the Claim Petition filed by the Claimant/Workman in accordance with the law.

¶25

All pending Applications stand disposed of.

¶26

Parties to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶27

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶28

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶29

JULY 19, 2024/ g.joshi

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶31

Ravi v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Dtc & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. Chairman Cum Managing Director Dtc & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pervez Hayaatt Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mufg Bank Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (2)(1) & Ors.

A.K. Malik Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Smt D Sandhya Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gauri Shanker Shukla & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashwani Kapoor Legal Representative of Late Col Suraj Perkash Kapoor Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ramshila Paramedical Technical College Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Subhas Chandra Vs Nirmal Sawhney

M/S Menmy Shop.Com Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Umesh Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Smt. Sapna Jain & Anr.

Hd Engineers Allied Industries Vs Swaminath

M/S Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies Vs Ms Sarita Sagar & Anr.

Sudhir Nirvana @ Sudhir Nayyar Vs Amrit Lal Taneja & Anr.