Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Raj Kumar

$~54to86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%		*Date of Decision: 17*^thApril, 2025
+	CM(M) 3696/2024, CM APPL & CM APPL. 22406/2025	. 62646/2024, CM APPL. 62647/2024
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	RAJE	.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg
		and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.
55
+	CM(M) 3723/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 63457/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	ASHOK	.....Respondent
	Through:
56
+	CM(M) 3725/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 63481/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	OM VEER	.....Respondent
	Through:	Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee,
		Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj,
		Advocates.
57
+	CM(M) 3726/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 63483/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	ANITA	.....Respondent

¶4

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 1

¶5

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶6

Through: Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.

¶7

58

¶8

CM(M) 3727/2024 & CM APPL. 63485/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus RAJAN .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.

¶9

59 + CM(M) 3728/2024 & CM APPL. 63487/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus RAJ KUMARI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.

¶10

60 + CM(M) 3729/2024 & CM APPL. 63490/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶11

versus

¶12

SURESH CHAND .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given.

¶13

61 + CM(M) 3750/2024 & CM APPL. 64028/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶14

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 2

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶16

	versus
	BINESH Through:	.....Respondent Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.
62
+	CM(M) 3751/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 64065/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	SHILA	.....Respondent
	Through:	Appearance not given.
63
+	CM(M) 3752/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 64069/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	PINKI & ANR.	.....Respondent
	Through:	Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmee, Ms. Surbhi Bagra and Mr. Ritwik Raj, Advocates.
64
+	CM(M) 3807/2024, CM 22411/2025	APPL. 66077/2024 & CM APPL.
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	RAMLESH	.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg
		and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.
65
+	CM(M) 3808/2024 & CM AP	PL. 66079/2024
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner

¶17

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 3

¶18

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶19

	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	SUSHIL	....Respondent
	Through:	Appearance not given.
66
+	CM(M) 3809/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 66081/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	MUNESH PAL	.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.
67
+	CM(M) 3811/2024, CM 22410/2025	APPL. 66126/2024 & CM APPL.
	MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	MUKESH KUMAR	.....Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg
		and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.
68
+	CM(M) 3871/2024 & CM AP MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO	PL. 67853/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	versus
	LATA	.....Respondent
	Through:	Appearance not given.

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 4 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶21

69

¶22

+	CM(M) 3873/2 MUNICIPAL C	024 & CM AP ORPORATIO	PL. 67861/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
	ANIL	Through: versus Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. .....Respondent Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with
			Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg
70			and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.
+	CM(M) 3874/	2024, CM	APPL. 67865/2024 & CM APPL.
	22224/2025
	MUNICIPAL C	ORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
		Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	HOSHIARI		.....Respondent
		Through:	Appearance not given.
71
+	CM(M) 3893/2 MUNICIPAL C	024 & CM AP ORPORATIO	PL. 68444/2024 N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
		Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	RAJWATI		.....Respondent
		Through:	Appearance not given.
72
+	CM(M) 3894/2	024 & CM AP	PL. 68446/2024
	MUNICIPAL C	ORPORATIO	N OF DELHI .....Petitioner
		Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.
	LEELU		.....Respondent
73		Through:	Appearance not given.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 5

¶25

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶26

CM(M) 3895/2024 & CM APPL. 68448/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus BABU .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates. 74 + CM(M) 3896/2024 & CM APPL. 68450/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus VINOD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates. 75 + CM(M) 3897/2024 & CM APPL. 68463/2024 & CM APPL. 22432/2025 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus SANTOSH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates. 76 + CM(M) 3898/2024 & CM APPL. 68465/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶28

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 6

¶29

versus

¶30

RAJKUMAR .....Respondent

¶31

Through: Appearance not given.

¶32

77 + CM(M) 3901/2024 & CM APPL. 68471/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶33

versus

¶34

SHEESH PAL SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.

¶35

78 + CM(M) 3904/2024 & CM APPL. 68555/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶36

versus

¶37

CHANDADEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.

¶38

79

¶39

- CM(M) 3962/2024 & CM APPL. 70375/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶40

versus

¶41

SAROJ .....Respondent Through:

¶42

80

¶43

- CM(M) 3963/2024 & CM APPL. 70380/2024

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶45

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 7

¶46

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶47

versus RAJ KUMAR ....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. 81 + CM(M) 3966/2024 & CM APPL. 70395/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

¶48

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus KAVITA .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given. 82 + CM(M) 3967/2024 & CM APPL. 70401/2024 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD. versus DHARAM PAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates. 83 + CM(M) 3968/2024, CM APPL. 70410/2024 & CM APPL. 22408/2025

¶49

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 8

¶50

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶51

	MUNICIPAL C SAVITRI	ORPORATI Through: versus	ON OF DELHI Ms. Tajinder Virdi, for MCD.	.....Petitioner Standing Counsel .....Respondent
		Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rohan Mandal, and Mr. R.K. Pandit	Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Garg , Advocates.
84
+	CM(M) 3969/ 22409/2025 MUNICIPAL C	2024, CM ORPORATI	APPL. 70433/2024 ON OF DELHI	& CM APPL. .....Petitioner
		Through: versus	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, for MCD.	Standing Counsel
	RAJKALI			.....Respondent
85		Through:	Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rohan Mandal, and Mr. R.K. Pandit	Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Garg , Advocates.
+	CM(M) 3970/2 MUNICIPAL C	024 & CM AP ORPORATI	PL. 70437/2024 ON OF DELHI	.....Petitioner
	GUDDI	Through: versus Through:	Ms. Tajinder Virdi, for MCD. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rohan Mandal, and Mr. R.K. Pandit	Standing Counsel .....Respondent Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Garg , Advocates.
86
+	CM(M) 3971/ 22221/2025	2024, CM	APPL. 70476/2024	& CM APPL.

¶52

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 9

¶53

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶54

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

¶55

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Standing Counsel for MCD.

¶56

versus

¶57

RAKESH

¶58

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Mandal, Mr. Mohit Garg and Mr. R.K. Pandit, Advocates.

¶59

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶60

Ms. Tajinder Virdi, learned Standing Counsel for MCD/Management has, during the course of the arguments, restricted relief with respect to waiver of the cost only.

¶61

She submits that in all the 33 matters, applications had been moved by the Management/MCD seeking dismissal of the applications filed by the workman under section 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, while dismissing all such applications, vide order dated 13.09.2024, burdened them with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/in each case. Such cost, instead of being paid to the opposite side, is to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority, Rouse Avenue, District Courts, Delhi, within four weeks.

¶62

Ms. Virdi submits that the MCD/Management, while defending the matters, had simply moved applications in accordance with law and even if the applications were to be dismissed, there was no necessity of putting such cost. It is vehemently contended that the applications were not moved with

¶63

Signature Not Verified

¶64

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶65

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 10

¶66

any ulterior motive or to delay the proceedings. According to her, the MCD/Management was seeking dismissal of the Applications of the workmen filed under 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore, it merely wanted to bring forth the malpractice of duplicity in initiating legal recourse by the Workmen, for similar claim and cause of action, before two different forums i.e. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal as well as Labour Courts . According to her, the jurisdiction with respect to pending matters in question vested with Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal only and not with Labour Court . Therefore, those applications were moved and even if those lacked any merit, the cost, in such arbitrary manner, should not have been imposed.

¶67

There is appearance, in most of the matters today, from the side of the respondent and during course of the arguments, Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/workmen have left it to this Court to pass appropriate order with respect to waiver of cost, while supplementing that the cost was imposed as the learned Labour Court was of the view that such applications could not have been filed as these were in teeth of the specific directions contained in order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 10704/2024.

¶68

Having gone through the entire matter and keeping in mind the overall facts of the case as well as above order dated 13.08.2024, it is felt that imposition of cost of Rs. 20,000/- was excessive, particularly, when there is nothing to suggest any kind of malafide, behind moving said applications.

¶69

Resultantly, the cost is reduced to Rs.1000/- from Rs.20,000/- in each such case.

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶72

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 11

¶73

Let the cost be deposited within four weeks from today with the same Authority and proof of deposit be placed before the learned Labour Court.

¶74

Learned Senior counsel for respondents/workmen also submit that they would move appropriate application before the learned Labour Court seeking direction to, at least, release the admitted amount in favour of such workman. Such liberty is always available to them. It is, however, expected that, as and when any such application is moved, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the same may be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶75

Learned Labour Court shall also make best endeavour to dispose of the claims, expeditiously.

¶76

All the present petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶77

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶78

APRIL 17, 2025/ss/shs

¶79

Signature Not Verified

¶80

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 2.04.2025 10:48:39

¶81

CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 12

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Devi and Ors. Vs Veermati

Santosh Tuli Vs Sh. C.L. Chopra & Ors.

Prime Care Hospital Ltd. & Anr. Vs Kamla Devi Deceased & Ors.

Supertech Limited Vs Kanwal Batra & Anr.

Ashok Sharma & Anr. Vs Jas Karan Singh

Ankit Sharma Vs Prachika Lochan Gupta

Kanchana M Shekhar Vs Avinash Shekhar

Kaushal Raj Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Maya Devi and Ors. Vs Veermati

Santosh Tuli Vs Sh. C.L. Chopra & Ors.

Prime Care Hospital Ltd. & Anr. Vs Kamla Devi Deceased & Ors.

Himanshu Shekhar Vs Mamta Shekhar

M/S Needs Tele System Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Indiacan Education Pvt. Ltd.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Raj Kumari