Disposed¶28

Anil Singh v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/2041/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 2041/2025; CM APPL. 9608/2025 & 9607/2025; Anil Singh; Union of India Ministry of Labour and Employment; labour commissioner; provident fund; gratuity; retrenchment benefits; retirement benefits; representation dated 23.10.2024; speaking order within four weeks; single window grievance system left open; petition withdrawn against respondents 4, 5, 7; M/s Ann Arora Security Services; Girish Kathpalia; 17.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondents no. 2, 3 and 6 directed to treat the petition as a representation and dispose of it by way of speaking order within four weeks; petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition against respondents no. 4, 5 and 7; accompanying applications also disposed of. ¶28

Anil Singh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents nos. 2 to 6 would acknowledge and expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's representations and complaints relating to retrenchment benefits, gratuity, provident fund and retirement benefits, by way of speaking orders after a personal hearing. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Respondents no. 2, 3 and 6 are directed to treat the present petition as a representation and dispose of the same by way of speaking order within four weeks.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

No court directions can be passed on prayer clause III (single window system) as it is strictly a policy decision; the petitioner dropped that prayer, and the single window aspect was left open to be examined by respondent no. 1.

¶23

Key takeaways

Since respondents no. 4 and 5 did not appear despite service of advance intimation, permission was given to withdraw the petition against them with liberty to file a fresh petition confined to them, enabling disposal of the present petition.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 2041/2025 (High Court of Delhi, GIRISH KATHPALIA, J., 17.02.2025) - Anil Singh v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment & Ors.: Workman-petitioner sought acknowledgement and time-bound disposal of his complaints and of his representation dated 23.10.2024 pending before the Labour Commissioner/district labour office, Additional Provident Fund Commissioner and insurance commissioner. Counsel conceded that the prayer for a single window grievance system (prayer III) was strictly a policy matter and dropped it; the single window aspect was left open to be examined by respondent no. 1. As respondents no. 4, 5 and 7 (including the proprietor of M/s Ann Arora Security Services) did not appear despite advance intimation, the petition was withdrawn against them with liberty to file afresh confined to them. Respondents no. 2, 3 and 6 were directed to treat the petition as a representation and dispose of it by way of speaking order within four weeks. Accompanying CM applications also stand disposed of.

¶1

$~88

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2041/2025, CM APPL. 9608/2025 & 9607/2025

¶4

ANIL SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra and Ms. Renu, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, SPC and Ms. Seema Singh, GP for R1 Ms. Palak Gupta, Advocate for R2, R3 and R6

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.02.2025

¶12

[ Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶13

1. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this writ petition:

¶14

“I. Pass an order directing the respondents to acknowledge and act on the complaints sent by the petitioner herein sent to the respective officials as detailed in para 3 of the present petition with a further direction to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner herein and dispose them off in a time bound manner.

¶15

II. Pass an order directing respondents no. 2 to 6 i.e. office of Labour commissioner, district labour office for redressal, Additional Provident Fund Commissioner and insurance commissioner to consider the representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexed AT Annexure P-7 to P-9) made on behalf of the petitioner and pass speaking orders disposing of the same after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

III. Pass an order/ direction thereby directing the Ministry of Labour and Employment to provide a single window system to accept and acknowledge grievances of employee/ workmen related to retrenchment benefits, gratuity, Provident Fund, retirement benefits etc.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 21:50:07

¶19

IV. Pass an order directing Sh. R.M. Tamakuwala, proprietor of M/s Ann Arora Security Services, to comply with the provisions laid down in the payments of Gratuity act, Bonus Act, Minimum wages act and further direct the respondent No.7 to clear the due along with interest to the petitioner.

¶20

V. Pass an order directing the concerned authorities to obviate the difficulties faced by a workman or an employee and to form a single window for complaints instead of the workman running from the pillar to post.

¶21

VI. Pass any such directions or order that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above.”

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6 appearing on advance intimation accepts notice. As regards, respondents no. 4, 5 and 7 none has appeared despite service of advance intimation.

¶23

After addressing partly, learned counsel for petitioner in all fairness admits that prayer clause III of the petition being strictly a matter of policy decision, no such directions can be passed, so he drops this prayer. Only this prayer pertained to respondent no.1. However, as requested by learned counsel for petitioner, this aspect of prayer clause III pertaining to single window system is left open, to be examined by respondent no.1.

¶24

As regards the remaining prayer, the basic relief sought by the petitioner is expeditious disposal of his representations made to the official respondents no. 2-6. Learned counsel for respondents appearing today assured that the said representations can be disposed of in time bound manner. As regards, the official respondents no. 4 and 5, since none has appeared despite advance intimation, learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition against them with liberty to file fresh petition confined to them, so that the present petition be disposed of.

¶25

In the above circumstances, respondents no. 2, 3 and 6 are directed to

¶26

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 21:50:07

¶27

treat the present petition as representation and dispose of the same by way of speaking order within four weeks from today.

¶28

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition against the present respondents no. 4,5 and 7.

¶29

Accompanying applications also stand disposed of.

¶30

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶31

FEBRUARY 17, 2025/ rk

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

Anil Singh v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Singh v. Union of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

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

Gurpreet Singh Vs the Commissioner, MCD & Ors.

Sanjit Chand Paswan Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University

Anita Singh Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.

Gayatri Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs Dr. Prabhu Nath Singh and Anr.

Dharambir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Panaesha Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Sandeep Phogat & Anr. Vs Danish Azim Qureshi

Sh. Amit Bansal & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Shagun Bagai and Anr. Vs Veena Luthra and Ors.

Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch & Ors. Vs Sh Anand Raj Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/S Rr Agrotech

Safar Transport Corp. & Anr. Vs Dev Dutt Sharma

Arun Vs Hinduja Housing Finance Ltd.

Deepak Malhotra Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Panaesha Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Sandeep Phogat & Anr. Vs Danish Azim Qureshi