Disposed

Salman Ahmad and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Labour Department and Anr.

Delhi HC1 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/3620/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Workmen apprehended termination and alteration of service conditions during a pending industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The court held Section 33 bars prejudicial changes during such pendency, directed that status quo in employment be maintained, and disposed of the petition without further orders.

What did the court decide?

Status quo in petitioners' employment to be maintained during pendency of industrial dispute before Industrial Tribunal-1; petition disposed.

Salman Ahmad and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~83

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 01.04.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3620/2025, CM APPL. 16906/2025 & 16907/2025

¶5

SALMAN AHMAD AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Meghna De, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI LABOUR DEPARTMENT AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Batra, Advocate for R-1.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

¶10

The grievance of the Petitioners [15 in number] as articulated in the prayers in the present Petition reads as follows:

¶11

“a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondents no. 1 and 2 to comply with the notice bearing ALC-III OL/8/(41)/2024 issued by the Conciliation Officer dated 21.02.2024 regarding not changing service condition during the pendency of the dispute in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act; and/or

¶12

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to maintain status quo in the service conditions of the Petitioners and not to terminate their services during the pendency of the industrial dispute and not to create third party rights in the posts on which the petitioners working.”

¶13

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the prayers in the present Petition are confined to a direction to the

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Da te:0 5.04.2025 17:38:22

¶15

Respondents to continue with the services of the Petitioners, who have been working as Data Entry Operator/ Multi Tasking Staff with the Respondent No.1, till the adjudication of the Industrial Dispute as raised by the Petitioners before the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner.

¶16

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners apprehend that the Respondent No.1 may terminate their services despite the fact that a dispute is pending adjudication. He further states that during the period that proceedings are pending, under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], the service condition(s) of the workmen cannot be disturbed.

¶17

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submits that there is no relation of employee and employer between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1. However, this is the subject matter of the Industrial Dispute which has been raised before the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner.

¶18

4.1 Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that as of now there is no proposal to terminate these workmen.

¶19

It is not in dispute that the Petitioners had already approached the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner for the adjudication of dispute and the same was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-1, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, by the order dated 21.02.2024.

¶20

Section 33(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that no employer shall alter the conditions of service applicable to the workmen to the prejudice of the workmen during the pendency of proceedings before the

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Da te:0 5.04.2025 17:38:22

¶22

Conciliation Officer or a Board or any proceeding before an Arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal immediately before the commencement of such proceeding.

¶23

A bare reading of Section 33 makes it clear that if a matter is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the conditions of the service of the workman who is part of such proceedings, shall remain unchanged during the pendency of such industrial dispute.

¶24

In these circumstances, no order is required to be passed in the present Petition. However, it is made clear that the services of the Petitioners shall not be disturbed and status quo in regard to their employment shall be maintained during the pendency of the dispute before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-1, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, in compliance with Section 33 of the Act.

¶25

The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending Applications shall stand closed.

¶26

The Parties shall act based on a digitally signed copy of the order.

¶27

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶28

APRIL 1, 2025/pa

¶29

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Da te:0 5.04.2025 17:38:22

Salman Ahmad and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Labour Department and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Ahmad and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi Labour Department and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danisco (India) Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi & Anr.

M/S Ashish Agarwal Vs National Highways Authority of India

Saransh Garg Vs Department of Customs

M/S Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 (1) Delhi

M/S Chouhan Caters Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avaada Energy Private Limited Vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, & Anr.

Save India Foundation Vs Lg of Delhi & Ors.

Harjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Allahabad Bank @Indian Bank & Ors.

Panchkuian Road Municipal Market Association Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Atandra Ray Vs Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Ors.

Atandra Ray Vs Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Ors.

Pearl Engineering Company Vs Jitender Singh

Ikon Retails Pvt. Ltd. Vs Naterpal and Anr.

Nikunj Kumar Lohia Vs Bal Krishan Garodia & Ors.