Delhi High Court
Sh. Shashank Gupta vs M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd on 16 May, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th May, 2011
W.P.(C) 2837/2011 & CM No.6078/2011 (for stay).
M/S MIRC ELECTRONICS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate.
versus
SH. SHASHANK GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurabh Munjal & Mr. Randhir
Kumar, Advocates.
AND
+ CONT.CAS(C) 345/2011
SH. SHASHANK GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Munjal & Mr. Randhir
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
M/S MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
W.P.(C) 2837/2011 & CONT.CAS(C) 345/2011 Page 1 of 6
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 1 st March,
2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the application of the
employer for amendment of the reply/written statement. Notice of the writ
petition was issued on 2 nd May, 2011 for today on the condition that the
proceedings underway before the Industrial Adjudicator will not be held up
for this reason of pendency of this writ petition and no date shall be taken
before the Industrial Adjudicator on the ground of pendency of this
petition.
2. Contempt petition has been filed by the workman on the ground that
notwithstanding the direction to the employer not to take adjournment
before the Industrial Adjudicator, on 4th May, 2011 when the matter was
listed before the Industrial Adjudicator, adjournment was taken on the
ground of the pendency of the present writ petition.
3. The senior counsel for the employer has fairly conceded that what
transpired before the Industrial Adjudicator is in contempt of the order
dated 2nd May, 2011 in the writ petition. He under instructions also tenders
unqualified apology for the same and has explained the circumstances in
which the mistake occurred.
4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the workman as to whether
the workman by way of punishment of the said contempt wants the writ
petition to be dismissed or desires the contempt to be purged in other
manner. He states that the workman is interested in expeditious disposal of
the dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator.
5. On enquiry, the senior counsel for the employer states that the
amendments claimed are threefold; firstly qua the territorial jurisdiction,
with the submission being that the employment was at Noida and hence the
Government of National Capital Territorial of Delhi would not be the
appropriate government to make reference; secondly that the factory at
Noida where the workman was employed has been closed down and lastly
that an option had been given to the workman to join at the alternative
factory of the employer at Thane, Maharashtra.
6. The counsel for the workman has stated that the offer was
conditional and the workman could not be expected to re-locate faraway
when the other establishments of the employer are running in the vicinity.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it has been put to the senior counsel for the
employer that to purge the contempt, the objection as to territorial
jurisdiction be given up in toto, not to be pressed at any stage of the
proceedings. The senior counsel on instructions is agreeable to the same.
8. The counsel for the workman also states that the employer
notwithstanding demand has not been issuing the "Experience Certificate"
and owing whereto the workman is unable to get employment anywhere
else.
9. The senior counsel for the employer under instructions states that
"Experience Certificate" was tendered before the Industrial Adjudicator
and another copy of the same would be furnished.
10. The counsel for the workman however states that the "Experience
Certificate" is not in the required format and states that the format in which
the certificate is required shall be furnished. The senior counsel for the
employer on instructions states that unless there is any objection to the said
format, the Experience Certificate as desired shall be furnished
immediately.
11. In the circumstances, the writ petition and the contempt case are
disposed of with the following directions:-
a) The order dated 1st March, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator
in so far as dismissing the application for amendment qua the
pleas of close down of the factory and offer of alternative
appointment as mentioned in the application is set aside and
the amendments to the said effect are allowed.
b) The contempt committed by the employer is permitted to be
purged on the condition that the employer shall at no stage in
the proceedings object to the reference being made by the
appropriate government or to the territorial jurisdiction of the
Industrial Adjudicator.
c) The employer to file the amended reply/written statement
within one week and rejoinder thereto be filed by the
workman on or before the next date before the Industrial
Adjudicator i.e. 5th July, 2011.
d) The Industrial Adjudicator to decide the dispute on or before
31st January, 2012.
e) The employer to also pay costs of `7,500/- of these
proceedings to the workman on or before the next date before
the Industrial Adjudicator i.e. 5 th July, 2011.
f) The controversy if any qua experience certificate be also
resolved by the Industrial Adjudicator.
CM No.9691/2011 (for exemption) in CONT.CAS(C) 345/2011.
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MAY 16th , 2011
pp..
