Delhi High Court - Orders
India Tourism Development Corporation ... vs Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union on 21 September, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:22.09.2021 16:21:42
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2638/2018 & CM APPLs. 10821/2018
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Sumitra Choudhary and Mr. Deepak
Yadav, Advocates. (M:9999210199)
versus
ASHOK HOTEL MAZDOOR JANTA UNION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Mr. J.P. Singh &
Ms. Tanya Sharma, Advocates (M-
9810633614)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 21.09.2021
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 26049/2018 (for directions)
2. This is an application where regular pay scale is being sought by Workmen with all allowances of the security department from the date of award i.e. 31st August, 2017 till the date of the final decision in this writ petition. In this regard, this Court has already granted limited interim relief vide order dated 30th July, 2020, that the Respondent-employees would not be terminated even if a new contractor is engaged. The direction for regular pay scale cannot be issued at this stage in view of order dated 8th April 2013, made absolute by order dated 5th February, 2018, in LPA No. 199/2013 titled Management of Ashok Hotel (ITDC) v. Their Workmen & Anr., Vide the said order, the ld. Division Bench has stayed the order for regularisation, W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.09.2021 16:21:42 that had been passed by a ld. Single Judge of this Court, under similar circumstances. In view of the same, the relief sought in this application, cannot be granted at this stage.
3. This application is disposed of in these terms. CM APPL. 39053/2019 (for directions)
4. This is an application challenging the letter dated 19 th July, 2019 whereby the Management through the contractor, has informed the Workman who is a security guard - Mr. Shiv Swarup, that since he would be attaining 58 years of age on 6th September, 2019, he cannot continue in his services from 1st September, 2019. In view of the fact that the age of superannuation is 58 years, the contractor cannot be expected to continue with the services of the said Workman. The same would however, be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition where regularisation has been sought, as the final relief may have a bearing on pensionary and other benefits.
5. The application is disposed of in these terms. CM APPLs.17090/2020 & 21944/2020 (for directions)
6. These are two applications seeking maintenance of status quo and seeking directions that the Management ought not to interfere with the discharge of duty of the Workmen. Vide the order of this Court dated 30th July, 2020 it is already directed as under:
"7. A perusal of the notice dated 13th July, 2020 and award dated 31st August, 2017 shows that there is a complete mismatch between the two. The contractor is continuing to proceed on the basis that the employees are employees of the contractor and not of ITDC, however, the award had clearly declared that the employees are the employees of W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.09.2021 16:21:42 ITDC. Owing to the submission that there is an LPA pending and the regularisation policy of ITDC has been stayed, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the employees are entitled to limited interim relief to the extent that if any new contractor is engaged by ITDC the services of the Respondent-employees shall not be terminated. The Respondent-employees would be allowed to perform the same duties as they are currently performing. Ordered accordingly. The new contractor shall be notified by ITDC of today's order in order to ensure compliance."
7. In view of the above order, it is directed that the employees, who are working through contractor, shall not be terminated, even if a new contractor is engaged by Petitioner/ITDC (hereinafter "ITDC"). They shall be allowed to render the services that they are currently rendering. However, this protection would extend only to those employees, who have not attained the superannuation age of 58 years.
8. These applications are disposed of in these terms. CM APPL.571/2021 & 21126/2021 (for directions)
9. In these applications, the grievance of the Workmen is that the full salary is not being paid to them and they are being paid only for the days when their services are engaged. Vide order dated 8th January, 2021, the predecessor Bench of this Court had expressed a prima facie view in this regard. Ld. Senior Counsel for ITDC, submits that he has received instructions that on this issue, the Workmen have approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner ("ALC"). This fact to be confirmed by both the counsels for ITDC and the Workmen.
10. Secondly, ITDC to also obtain instructions by the next date W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 3 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:22.09.2021 16:21:42 specifically, as to what is the rate at which these employees are being paid and how many employees have approached the ALC. Let a short note be filed in this regard.
11. List these applications for hearing on 3rd December, 2021, along with the main petition.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2021/dk/Rahul/MS W.P.(C) 2638/2018 Page 4 of 4