Parmod Kumar v. Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and Anr

1. Notice in this Petition was issued by this Court on 12.08.2024 when this Court passed the following directions: “….

3. The present Petition has been filed praying for directions to the Respondent No. 1 to maintain status quo in the service condition of the Petitioner and not to terminate his service during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has raised an Industrial Dispute and filed his Statement of Claim on 02.05.2024 before the Respondent No. 2. In pursuance thereof, a Notice dated 09.05.2024 has been issued by the Conciliation Officer.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.1 is in the process of terminating Petitioner’s services and that the Petitioner apprehends that this is a countermeasure for raising Industrial Dispute for regularisation of his services. She submits that the Petitioner apprehends immediate termination of their services.

6. Issue Notice. 6.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 accepts Notice and requests for some time to take instructions. If instructions are received to resist the Petition, let Affidavit/Counter-Affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

7. In the meantime, let no coercive steps be taken in respect of the services of the Petitioner till the next date of hearing….”

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, restricts the prayer in the present Petition to the following: “….directing the Respondent No.1 to maintain status quo in the service condition of the Petitioner and not to terminate their services during the pendency of the industrial dispute….”

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner to adjudicate the remaining prayers before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

4. No Counter-Affidavit has been filed. 4.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/DSIIDC, who is the contesting Respondent, submits that given the orders that this Court proposes to pass, she does not wish to file a Counter-Affidavit.

5. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Petitioner apprehends that the Respondent No. 1/DSIIDC may terminate his services despite the fact that an industrial dispute is pending adjudication. He further states that during the period that proceedings are pending under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred as “the Act”], the service condition(s) of the workman cannot be disturbed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/DSIIDC submits that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner had already approached the Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner for the adjudication of dispute and by a Notice dated 09.05.2024 the same was referred to the Office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, Employment Exchange Building, Pusa Road, Delhi.

7. Section 33(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that no employer shall alter the conditions of service applicable to the workmen to the prejudice of the workmen during the pendency of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer or a Board or any proceeding before an Arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal. Section 33 (1) (a) reads as follows: