Delhi High Court - Orders
Union Bank Of India vs Sh Himmat Ram on 28 August, 2024
$~94
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11794/2024 & CM APPL. 49028/2024
UNION BANK OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. with Mr. Niraj
Kumar, Mr. Sourabh Mahla and Mr.
Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Advs.
versus
SH HIMMAT RAM .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 28.08.2024
1. The prayers made in the present Petition read as follows:
"a. call for the records of the case in ID No. 687/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Delhi; b. may issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction for quashing the impugned award dated 06.07.2023 passed in ID No. 687/2016 passed by the Ld. Labour Court, Delhi;"
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is two folded. In the first instance, it is contended that the Award dated 06.07.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Award"] has been passed without jurisdiction.
2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of Section 2(bb) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"], the appropriate government for a banking company 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 31/08/2024 at 03:10:02 is the Central Government, while the Impugned Award has been passed by the learned Labour Court of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
2.2 Learned Counsel further seeks to rely upon the certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer under Section 2A of the Act which clearly sets out that the Respondent/Workman is to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court for adjudication of his disputes at Karkardooma, Delhi, to submit that despite the same, the Respondent/Workman approached the wrong forum and, thus, the Impugned Award cannot subsist.
2.3 It is further contended that the Respondent/Workman was merely a casual worker who did not obtain employment with the Petitioner in terms of its Rules and procedures. It is admitted case of the Respondent/Workman that he was engaged as a Peon by Mr. P.P. Grover who was then working as a Manager of the Petitioner/Bank. In addition, it is contended that in the cross-examination the Respondent/Workman has admitted that he did not obtain employment under any written contract or pursuant to an advertisement and or written test as is the procedure followed by the Petitioner.
2.4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, fairly concedes that the submission with respect to jurisdiction does not form part of his written statement which was filed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 26.02.2014, prior to his being proceeded with ex-parte.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Impugned Award has been passed in favour of the Respondent/Workman who was stated to be working with the erstwhile Andhra Bank. He submits that 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 31/08/2024 at 03:10:02 Andhra Bank has been amalgamated with Petitioner by notification dated 04.03.2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and in terms of the scheme of the amalgamation (Clause 9) all disputes and proceedings pending as on the date of amalgamation shall continue to be understood to be pending against the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was not aware of the award and it is only when a notice was received for enforcement of the Impugned Award on 07.06.2024 that the Petitioner became aware of the same.
4. Issue Notice.
4.1 On steps being taken, let notice be issued to the Respondent via all modes including electronically. Dasti in addition. An Affidavit of service be filed within two weeks.
5. Counter-Affidavit be filed within four weeks. 5.1 Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that in view of the fact that the Impugned Award has been passed without jurisdiction, the enforcement of the said Award may be stayed during the pendency of the present proceedings.
7. Prima facie, the Impugned Award appears to have been passed without jurisdiction, thus, the certificate for recovery issued by the Implementation Cell, Central District, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
8. List on 18.10.2024.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J AUGUST 28, 2024/SA Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 31/08/2024 at 03:10:03