Disposed

Sh Janardan Prasad and Ors. v. Delhi State Cancer Institute and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/4057/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted an interim status quo order and disposed of the writ petition, directing parties to maintain the status quo regarding service conditions during pendency of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Interim status quo granted vide earlier order dated 01.04.2025 made absolute; petition and pending application disposed of with direction to maintain status quo.

Sh Janardan Prasad and Ors. Vs Delhi State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4057/2025, CM APPL. 18897/2025

¶4

SH JANARDAN PRASAD AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Surbhi, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI STATE CANCER INSTITUTE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil and Mr. Karan Chopra, Advocates for respondent no.3.

¶7

Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Amitoj Chadha, Advocates. Mr. Shivnath Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶10

% 18.07.2025

¶11

By way of the present writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents to comply with the notice dated 28.03.2025, passed by the Conciliation Officer whereby the respondent was advised to adhere to the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, ‘ the Act ’) and to maintain status quo regarding the service condition during the pendency of the claim.

¶12

The present petition arises in the context of an industrial dispute raised by the petitioners/workmen, who claim that they are rendering services as Security Guards , to the respondent No.1 and their engagement on

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 23/07/2025 at 12:37:42

¶15

paper has been routed through intermediaries/contractors such as respondent No.2 and 3. It is submitted that this arrangement between the respondents is sham and bogus, and it is in this background that the petitioners/workmen approached the Conciliation Officer seeking regularization of their service from their initial dates of joining as well as payment of the difference of salary on the principle of ‘ equal pay for equal work ’. In the said petitions, respondent No. 3 has also been accused of making unlawful demands from the petitioner, i.e. asking for Rs. 20,000/- initially and Rs. 2000/- per month for continuation of their services. It is further submitted that the petitioners apprehend their termination of services on account of the aforesaid disclosure and for raising an industrial dispute, seeking regularisation of services. Reliance is placed on the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Conciliation Officer to submit that the termination of their service during the pendency of the industrial dispute would violate Section 33 of the Act.

¶16

Indisputably, the dispute between the parties is currently pending before the Conciliation Officer. It is now a settled position in law that a workman’s service conditions cannot be altered during the pendency of a conciliation proceeding before the Conciliation Officer. A gainful reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported as (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 , wherein, while taking note of Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is pari materia to Section 33 of the Act, it was held that unilateral alteration in service conditions, including termination, is impermissible during the pendency of industrial dispute unless prior approval is obtained from the appropriate authority.

¶17

Considering the above facts and the aforesaid legal position, the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 23/07/2025 at 12:37:42

¶20

interim status quo granted vide order dated 01.04.2025 is made absolute and the petition, along with pending application, is disposed of with the direction that the parties shall maintain status quo during the pendency of the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer. Needless to state that the Conciliation Officer may pass the order as it may deem fit in accordance with law.

¶21

It is made clear that the aforesaid shall remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Labour Commissioner or Labour Court, if so referred.

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶23

JULY 18, 2025/ rd

¶24

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 23/07/2025 at 12:37:42

Sh Janardan Prasad and Ors. v. Delhi State Cancer Institute and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Janardan Prasad and Ors. v. Delhi State Cancer Institute and 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

Union of India & Ors. Vs 736624 N Ex Jwo Shashibind Kumar Poddar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sub Anil Kishore (Retd.)

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sgt Deepak (Retired)

Aswathy R P and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kamlesh Singhal Vs MCD & Ors.

Master Aarush through Father Sh Kunal Singh Vs Delhi International Public School and Anr.

Mashkoor Ahmad Vs the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rajeev Jain Vs Harish Mishra

Kuldeep Enterprises India Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar

Salasar E Waste LLP Vs Mahesh Singh

The State Vs Krishan Kant

Asha Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi