13. % 23.03.2010 Present:- Mr. P.I. Jose for the petitioner. jvir. A.K. Trivedi for the respondent. +W.P.CC.)Nos. 8165/2009&8255/2009 ^ * ^ Both these writ petitions have been tal<en up for final disposal by 0. . this consent order as counsel for both the parties have agreed for passing of a consent order in the matter. The respondent had joined the service with the petitioner as Senior Sub Editor at its Noida Unit on 03.09.1999. On account of certain misconduct alleged against him, he was suspended from service w.e.f. 03.06.2004. After holding departmental inquiry into the misconduct alleged against him, he was terminated from the service ^ w.e.f. 10.01.2005. Since an earlier industrial dispute raised by the workmen of the petitioner's organization vide ID No. 31/2004 was pending adjudication before the Labour Court, the management of the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its action for termination of. the respondent from its service w.e.f. 10.01.2005. This approval application filed by the petitioner management under Section 33(2)(b) is stated to be still pending for decision before the Labour Court. ^ During pendencyofapprovalproceedingsunderSection33(2)(b), the respondent workman filed a complaint against the petitioner's management under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 • and in that complaint, the Labour Court vide its interim order dated \ l/y,P.rCJ Nos. 8165/2009 & 8255/2009 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r / 31.07.2006, directed the management of the petitioner to pay .100% subsistence allowanceto the respondent as an interim measure during ' pendency of the complaint under Section 33-A. It is aggrieved by this / / /' / /• ' / •J interlocutoryorder of the Labour Court that the management of the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 8165/2009. The impugned interim order dated 31.07.2006 passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent workman was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 29.07.2009 and the said interim stay order is continuing till date. The respondent workman had filed a claim application being LCA No. 85/2006 under Section 33(c)(2) for implementation of directions of the Labour COurt contained in its interim order dated 31.07.2006 /A *• f passed in complaint case under Section 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, \ 1947. In that case being LCA No. 85/2006, the Labour Court vide its order dated 20.12.2008 has directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on account of subsistence allowance in terms of order dated 31.07.2006. Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing :0n behalf of the respondent workman, on instructions from his client present in the Court, says that his client will not insist for payment directed to be made to him vide impugned orders dated 31.07.2006 and 20.12.2008 in case the directions are given by this Court to the Labour Court for expeditious disposal of proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) pending before the Labour Court for approval of action of the management to \ W.P,(C,) Nos. 8165/2009 & 8255/2009 Page 2 of 4 '• 'V / / • //•' // Court is .also of the opinion that interest of justice shall be best sub •.:/ '1 < / \ terminate his services. This concession made on behalf of the ' respondent worl<man appears to be very fair and reasonable. This served in case directions are given to the Labour Court to decide the approval proceedings in a time bound period because in case the Labour Court after hearing the parties decides to grant approvaH for .termination of the respondent, then in that event, his termination will relate bacl< to the date on which his services were terminated by the petitioner w.e.f. 10.01.2005. However, in case the approval as prayed for by the petitioner under Section '33(2)(b) is declined, then in that event the respondent workman shall be deemed to have continued in the service of the petitioner and will be entitled to wages for the entire period till the date he is taken back on duty. Furthermore, in case the respondent workman is aggrieved by the order of grant of approval by the Labour Court, then it will furnish an independent cause of action to him to challenge the said order in appropriate, proceedings on all such grounds as may be available to him in law. In view of the foregoing and also having regard to the consent given by counsel for the parties, the impugned orders dated 31.07.2006 and 20.12.2008 are hereby set aside. Both these writ petitions are allowed. Directions are given to the concerned Labour Court before whom proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) are pending, to decide the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible maximum within three months from today. W.P.fC.) Nos. 8165/2009 & 8255/2009 Page 3 of 4 7 r i • /V // > A i The deposit that has been made by the petitioner management pursuant to Court order dated 17.04.2009 in WP(C) No. 8255/2009 shall not be disbursed to either of the parties till the time approval proceedings are decided by the Labour Court. The party who may be entitled to the said amount may make an application for the release of the said amount after disposal of the approval proceedings. These writ petitions stand disposed of in terms referred hereinabove. A copy of this order be. also kept in the file of the connected writ petition which has been disposed of by this common order. LCR along with a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Labour Court for information and necessary compliance. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. MARCH 23, 2010 ma' W.P.(C.) Nos. 8165/2009 & 8255/2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J ' I Page 4 of 4 (!> 49. % 28.05.2010 Present:- None. + Review Petition No. 240/2010 in W.P.fC.) No. 8255/2009 * This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2/ workman for review of final order dated 23.03.2010. As nobody is present on behalf of the applicant/respondent No. 2, th'fS review petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. MAY 28, 2010 •BSR' S.N.AGGARWAL, J $-19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -1- W.P.(C) 8255/2009 JAGRAN PRAICASHAN LTD Petitioner Through: Mr. B.K. Mislira, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NOT DELHI & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv. for Respondent No.2 - worlonan. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER % 15.03.2012 CM No.12557/2010 1. By way of this application, the applicant-workman(respondent no. 2 in the writ petition) seeks release of the amount which the non-applicant/employerhad deposited with this Court in complianceof the order dated 1?"^ April, 2009 while staying the recovery proceedings which had been initiated against the petitioner-management in execution of the Labour Court's order in LCA No.85/2006 which was a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the applicant-workman herein. The recovery which was being sought to be effected from the petitioner- managementwas for a sum of ?1,90,000/- whichthe LabourCourt had orderedto be paid to the applicant-workmanvide its order dated 31®' July, 2006 in another application, being OP No. 02/2006, filed under Section 31(l)(a) of ID Act by the petitioner- management. ' 2.' Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-management had approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The writpetitionwas disposedof by this Courton 23'^''March,2010 by directing that the Labour Court, where management's application under Section 33 was pending, to dispose of the same within a maximum period of three months. It was further ordered that for the release of the amount, which the employer had deposited v/ith this Court, the party entitled to that amount could make an application after disposal of the approval proceedings under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act 3. It is undisputedtliat the Labour Court has disposed of the apphcationby the managementu/s 33(1) and the same has been rejected on the ground that Delhi Courts have no territorialjurisdictionto entertainthe same. The employerhas not challenged that order of the Labour Court. 4. Consideringthe fact that the applicationofthe managementunder Section33 (1) ^ has already been disposed of by the Labour Court, may be on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the respondent-workman has become entitled to receive the payment of ^1,90,000/-which is lying depositedin this Court since that amounthad been orderedby the labourCourtto be paid to the respondent-worlananand operationofthat order was stayed by this Court subject to the petitioner-managementdepositingthat amountwiththis Court. This applicationis, therefore,allowedand Registryisdirectedto releasethe aforesaidamount along with interest,if any, accruedthereupon,in favour of tlie applicant-worlmianwithinfour weeksfrom today. P.K. BHASIN, X MARCH 15, 2012 die