Kuljeet Singh Chadha v. the Management of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC8 May 2025W.P.(C)/1574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kuljeet Singh Chadha v. Management of IBM India Pvt Ltd; High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 1574/2024, CM APPL. 6546/2024; Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.; decided 08.05.2025; espousal of industrial dispute by Union; workman definition section 2S ID Act; Section 2A Industrial Disputes Act 1947; I.D. No. 1069/2016; Industrial Tribunal-01 Rouse Avenue; award dated 18.11.2022 set aside; conciliation before Dy. Labour Commissioner; Annexure P-7; remand for fresh consideration; no merits observation; review application; apprehension of termination proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.08.2021 and award dated 18.11.2022 in I.D. No. 1069/2016 set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, with no expression of opinion on merits; petition alongwith pending application disposed of. ¶¶22

Kuljeet Singh Chadha Vs the Management of Ibm India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

(Tribunal Issue No.1) Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under section 2S of the ID Act. +3 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the rival contentions on espousal, it was deemed apposite to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

This Court expressed no observation on the merits of the case, and directed that the Tribunal consider the case on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations of the High Court.obiter¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Kuljeet Singh Chadha challenging the order dated 31.08.2021 and award dated 18.11.2022 in I.D. No. 1069/2016 of the Ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-01, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The Tribunal had framed issues including whether the claimant is a 'workman' under section 2S of the ID Act and whether the claim of the workman is properly espoused by the Union; though Issue No.1 was first marked preliminary and later ordered to be decided after evidence, the impugned Award was passed considering only Issue No.2, holding there was no espousal on the record. The petitioner asserted the espousal had been filed during conciliation before the Dy. Labour Commissioner (Annexure P-7); the respondent's counsel raised no objection to remand but urged the petitioner had not approached with clean hands, espousal never having been pleaded before the Tribunal or in the review application, which described it as a Section 2A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 case. Holding it fit in the circumstances, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, expressly recording no observation on the merits and directing the Tribunal to decide uninfluenced by the Court's remarks; the petition alongwith pending application was disposed of.

¶1

$~183

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1574/2024, CM APPL. 6546/2024

¶4

KULJEET SINGH CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE MANAGEMENT OF IBM INDIA PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 08.05.2025

¶8

By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 31.08.2021 and award dated 18.11.2022 in I.D. No. 1069/2016 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-01, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before it, learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 04.09.2018, framed following issues:-

¶10

“i) Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under section 2S of the ID Act. (As amended up to date?) OPW.

¶11

ii) Whether the claim of the workman is properly espoused by the Union? OPW.

¶12

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 01/07/2025 at 21:55:56

¶13

iii) As per terms of reference. OPW.”

¶14

Learned counsel further submits that though Ld. Tribunal observed in its order dated 04.09.2018 that Issue No.1 be considered as a preliminary issue however subsequently, on 31.08.2021 it was observed that the same could only be decided after the parties have led evidence. It is stated that instead of permitting the parties to lead evidence, the impugned Award came to be passed only considering the Issue No.2 whereby it has been held that there was no espousal on the record.

¶15

Ld. Counsel assails the findings on Issue No.2 by contending that during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, the petitioner had filed the espousal. A copy of the same has been placed on record in the present writ petition as Annexure P-7. In this backdrop, learned counsel prays that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.

¶16

Ms. Birbal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, states that she has no objection to the prayer made, however, submits that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. She submits that neither in the proceedings pending before the Ld. Tribunal nor in the review application, the petitioner plead a case of espousal. On the contrary, in the review application it was rather stated it to be a case under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶17

From above, while the petitioner claims that the Ld. Tribunal has not gone through the documents filed in the conciliation proceedings, the respondent pleads otherwise. Be that as it may, in the fitness of things, it is deemed apposite that in the light of what has been argued hereinabove, the

¶18

¶19

impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.

¶20

At this stage, it is informed that petitioner has also filed separate proceedings alleging apprehension of termination, which is stated to be pending before the Tribunal.

¶21

Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any observation on the merits of the case and the Tribunal will consider the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made by this Court hereinabove.

¶22

Petition alongwith pending application is disposed of.

¶23

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶24

MAY 8, 2025

¶25

¶26

Kuljeet Singh Chadha v. the Management of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljeet Singh Chadha v. the Management of Ibm India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Gaffar Prop. M/S Farhad Traders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Raj Kumar Aggarwal(through Legal Heir Sandeep Aggarwal) Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kmtc (India) Private Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 94 & Ors.

M/S A.S. Builders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kapil Dev Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Praveen Kumar Dwivedi and Anr. Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited & Anr.

Truevalue Marketing Services Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Simon Anthony Vs Union of India and Anr.

Union of India Vs Sh. Subhash & Anr.

Birendra Kumar Mohapatra Vs Commissioner Employee Provident Fund & Anr.

Nizar Mawani Vs Cs Ajay Antarkar and Anr.

Simon Anthony Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kashish Babbar and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

M/S Khyber Service Station and Anr. Vs Kali Charan