* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9742/2009 % Date of Decision: 01 July, 2009 # The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ..... Petitioners ! Through: Mr. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Dinesh Mathur,Mr.Sindhu Sinha and Mr.Nikhil Bhalla, Advs. Versus $ UOI & Anr. .....Respondent ^ Through: Mr.K.K.Sharma, Adv. for respondent No.1 Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.Yogendra Kumar Adv. for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) 1. Mr.K.K.Sharma is present on behalf of respondent No.1 on advance notice of this petition. Mr.O.P.Aggarwal accepts notice of this writ petition on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel for both parties at admission stage itself. W.P.(C) No.9742/2009 Page 1 of 5 3. The petitioners in this writ petition are four insurance companies, namely, (i) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (ii) The New Assurance Co. Ltd. (iii) The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and (iv) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The respondent No.2 is a Union of the employees of these insurance companies. 4. The petitioners had formulated a Job Rotation, Transfer and Mobility Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff (hereinafter to be referred as 'TMP' in short) for transferring its Class-III and Class-IV employees from one station to another in different promotion zones. The employees of the petitioners insurance companies through respondent No.2 Union, in December 2006, filed a complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against implementation of TMP to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the said complaint filed by respondent No.2/Union was registered as LCA No.23/2006. The petitioners insurance companies are defending the complaint case registered before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as LCA No.23/2006 which was listed for final arguments on 08.06.2009. 5. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the CGIT on 08.06.2009 had simply adjourned the matter for final arguments to be heard today. Pending LCA case No.23/2006 before CGIT, the Central Government issued a notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 (Annexure P at page 226 of the W.P.(C) No.9742/2009 Page 2 of 5 paper book) and referred the dispute relating to TMP of the Insurance Companies to the National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Action upon this notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 21.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.2782/2007 till the time decision is taken by the High Powered Committee in respect of disputes mentioned in the Central Government Notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007. Pursuant to orders of this Court dated 21.09.2007 and also in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported as 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 reiterated in ONGC & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported as 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 and MTNL Vs. Chairman, Central Board, Direct Taxes & Anr. reported as AIR 2004 SC 2434, the dispute mentioned in the notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was referred to the High Powered Committee and the said Committee has now decided vide its decision dated 13.05.2008 conveyed to the petitioners on 06.04.2009 that since the matter involves contentious issues, permission was granted to the petitioners to pursue the appeal before the High Court. 6. Admittedly, the dispute was referred by the Central Government to the National Industrial Tribunal vide its notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 and subject matter of the said dispute is pending for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi which is listed for final hearing today. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned W.P.(C) No.9742/2009 Page 3 of 5 senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners insurance companies contends that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of provisions contained in Sections 16, 17(A) and sub-section (6) of Section 17(A) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. It is not disputed that the proceedings pending before the CGIT, New Delhi are being defended by the petitioners (insurance companies) on the same ground of want of jurisdiction of CGIT to entertain the complaint of respondent No.2 Union under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the same point which is being urged by the petitioners in the present case is pending adjudication before the CGIT, it will be appropriate that the said authority first decides the objection of the petitioners regarding its jurisdiction as per law and in case either of the parties is aggrieved by such decision of the CGIT, such party will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies that may be available to them in law. At this stage, this Court would not like to entertain the present writ petition till the time adjudication takes place by the CGIT in proceedings that are pending for final arguments before it. Since the hearing before the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata pursuant to the notification of Central Government dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 21.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.2782/2007, it will be appropriate that if the proceedings before the said Tribunal are kept in abeyance till W.P.(C) No.9742/2009 Page 4 of 5 the time the parties exhaust their remedies against the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as per law. Hence, the hearing before the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata is ordered to be kept in abeyance till the time parties exhaust their legal remedies available to them against the decision of the CGIT, New Delhi as per law. Needless to state, that the petitioners (insurance companies) will be at liberty to urge all such contentions as are available to them in law in proceedings pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition and all miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. 8. Order dasti to counsel for both the parties. July 01, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL vg [JUDGE] W.P.(C) No.9742/2009 Page 5 of 5