Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Karlstorz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Azad Singh Negi on 28 May, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:28.05.2021
17:11:45
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5529/2021
M/S KARLSTORZ ENDOSCOPY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Birbal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Naresh Khanna & Ms. Raavi
Birbal, Advocates.
versus
SHRI AZAD SINGH NEGI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
2 AND
+ W.P.(C) 5531/2021
M/S KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Birbal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Naresh Khanna & Ms. Raavi
Birbal, Advocates.
versus
SHRI PRATAP SINGH NEGI ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 28.05.2021
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. CM APPLs. 17146/2021 &17150/2021 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of. WP(C) 5529/2021 & CM APPL.17145/2021(for ex parte ad interim stay) WP(C) 5531/2021 & CM APPL.17149/2021(for ex parte ad interim stay)
3. The present two petitions have been filed by the Petitioner- Management (hereinafter, "Management") challenging two orders of the W.P.(C) 5529/2021 & W.P.(C) 5531/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:28.05.2021 17:11:45 Labour Court dated 29th October, 2020 and 22nd December, 2020.
4. In brief, the case of the Management is that the Respondents are brothers who were working with the Petitioner company. They were found indulging in misconduct and an internal inquiry was conducted by the Management. After finding that there was misconduct running into several lakhs of rupees, the internal inquiry recommended dismissal of both the Respondents. This was challenged by the Respondents before the Labour Court. The Management challenges the finding in the first impugned order dated 29th October, 2020, as per which the Respondents are held to be workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. According to Ms. Birbal, ld. counsel, there is no finding by the Labour Court as to what was the kind of work that the Respondents were performing at the company and whether the same was skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory etc.
6. The second order under challenge is order dated 22nd December, 2020 by which the Labour Court has set aside the inquiry report as being violative of the principles of natural justice since the inquiry officer was a lawyer who was representing the Company.
7. Ms. Birbal, ld. Counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. v. Murari Lal Bikaneria, AIR 1971 SC 22 and Saran Motors Private Limited v. Vishwanath & Anr., (1964) 2 LLJ 139 to argue that in fact, there is no bar against a lawyer conducting an inquiry. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has settled this proposition several years ago and this position continues to operate even today.
8. Secondly, she submits that a finding relating to the kind of work that the Respondents were performing has not been rendered by the Labour W.P.(C) 5529/2021 & W.P.(C) 5531/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH SINGH NAYAL Signing Date:28.05.2021 17:11:45 Court and the petitions before the Labour Court were not maintainable.
9. In both these matters, issues have been raised which require consideration of this Court. The proceedings before the Labour Court are still pending. Accordingly, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 24th August, 2021.
10. The Respondents shall also be served through the counsel/AR appearing for the Respondents before the Labour Court.
11. In the meantime, there shall be a stay on the proceedings before the Labour Court in both cases.
12. List on 24th August, 2021.
13. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MAY 28, 2021 mw/T W.P.(C) 5529/2021 & W.P.(C) 5531/2021 Page 3 of 3