Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Raje

1. Ms. Tajinder Virdi, learned Standing Counsel for MCD/Management has, during the course of the arguments, restricted relief with respect to waiver of the cost only.

2. She submits that in all the 33 matters, applications had been moved by the Management/MCD seeking dismissal of the applications filed by the workman under section 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, while dismissing all such applications, vide order dated 13.09.2024, burdened them with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/in each case. Such cost, instead of being paid to the opposite side, is to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority, Rouse Avenue, District Courts, Delhi, within four weeks.

3. Ms. Virdi submits that the MCD/Management, while defending the matters, had simply moved applications in accordance with law and even if the applications were to be dismissed, there was no necessity of putting such cost. It is vehemently contended that the applications were not moved with CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 11 any ulterior motive or to delay the proceedings. According to her, the MCD/Management was seeking dismissal of the Applications of the workmen filed under 33-C (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore, it merely wanted to bring forth the malpractice of duplicity in initiating legal recourse by the Workmen, for similar claim and cause of action, before two different forums i.e. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal as well as Labour Courts. According to her, the jurisdiction with respect to pending matters in question vested with Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal only and not with Labour Court. Therefore, those applications were moved and even if those lacked any merit, the cost, in such arbitrary manner, should not have been imposed.

4. There is appearance, in most of the matters today, from the side of the respondent and during course of the arguments, Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/workmen have left it to this Court to pass appropriate order with respect to waiver of cost, while supplementing that the cost was imposed as the learned Labour Court was of the view that such applications could not have been filed as these were in teeth of the specific directions contained in order dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 10704/2024.

5. Having gone through the entire matter and keeping in mind the overall facts of the case as well as above order dated 13.08.2024, it is felt that imposition of cost of Rs. 20,000/- was excessive, particularly, when there is nothing to suggest any kind of malafide, behind moving said applications.

6. Resultantly, the cost is reduced to Rs.1000/- from Rs.20,000/- in each such case. CM(M) 3696/2024 & other connected matters 12

7. Let the cost be deposited within four weeks from today with the same Authority and proof of deposit be placed before the learned Labour Court.

8. Learned Senior counsel for respondents/workmen also submit that they would move appropriate application before the learned Labour Court seeking direction to, at least, release the admitted amount in favour of such workman. Such liberty is always available to them. It is, however, expected that, as and when any such application is moved, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the same may be disposed of in accordance with law.

9. Learned Labour Court shall also make best endeavour to dispose of the claims, expeditiously.

10. All the present petitions, along with pending applications, stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE APRIL 17, 2025/ss/shs