Jai Prakash Marmit And ORS. v. Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation (Dsiidc) And ORS.

$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10239/2024 JAI PRAKASH MARMIT AND ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Ms. Meghna De, Ms. L. Gangmei and Ms. Surbhi Bagra, Advocates.

versus DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (DSIIDC) AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. R.K. Dhawan, Standing Counsel with Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. V.K.

Teng and Ms.

Shivani Taneja, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.

Shivnath Kumar and Ms.

Farzana, Advocates with Ms. Deepti Gupta, Manager (Legal).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

O R D E R

% 20.08.2024 1.

The present Petition has been filed praying for directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to maintain status quo in the service condition of the Petitioners [9 in number] and not to terminate their services during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have raised an Industrial Dispute and filed their Statement of Claim on 02.05.2024 before the Respondent No. 3. In pursuance thereof, a Notice The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

dated 09.05.2024 has been issued by the Conciliation Officer. 3.

This Court by its order dated 26.07.2024 had directed that no coercive steps be taken in respect of the services of the Petitioners till the next date of hearing.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent No. 1/DSIIDC is in the process of terminating their services and that the Petitioners apprehend that this is a counter-measure for raising an Industrial Dispute for regularisation of their services. 4.1 It is further submitted that the Petitioners apprehend that the Respondent No. 1/DSIIDC may terminate their 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 workmen cannot be disturbed. 5.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/DSIIDC submits that it is not in dispute that the Petitioners 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.

6.

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 immediately before the commencement of such proceedings.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

7.

In these circumstances, it is directed that the services of the Petitioners shall not be disturbed and status quo in regard to their employment, shall be maintained during the pendency of the industrial dispute.

8.

The Petition along with all pending Applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J AUGUST 20, 2024/pa Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.