Delhi High Court
M.J. Prasad vs The Regional Labour Commissioner ... on 12 December, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 12th December, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 8858/2014
M.J. PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal,
Adv.
versus
THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER
& ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC
for R1 and R3.
Mr. Devendra Kumar and Mr. Anjum
Javed, Advs. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby
directing the respondent no. 1 to take a decision on the complaint
dated 18.11.2014 filed under Section 29 and 2(ra) read with Section
25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the petitioner.
2. Further seeks direction thereby directing the respondent no. 2
to execute the recovery in pursuance of requisition certificate dated
11/15.01.2013 for Rs.11,69,823/-.
3. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that pursuant to the industrial disputes raised by
the petitioner, ld. Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated
16.06.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the same before
this Court in W.P. (C) 6796/2001, whereby this Court set aside the
impugned award and held that the termination of services of the
petitioner is in breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (F)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, directed the respondent
/ Management to reinstate the petitioner as a regular employee with
50% back wages.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent / Management challenged
the order passed by this Court in LPA and approached the Supreme
Court, but could not get any relief. Thus, the order passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) 6796/2001 attained finality. Despite, the
respondent / Management did not comply the order passed by this
Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 29
and 2(ra) read with Section 25 U of the I.D. Act, which is pending.
6. On the similar issue, this court vide order dated 28.11.2014 in
W.P.(C) 7317/2014 directed the authority concerned to decide the
complaint under Section 2 (ra) and Section 29 read with Section
25-U of the I.D. Act within three months from the date of receipt of
the complaint.
7. In the present case, the complaint was filed on 18.11.2014.
Accordingly, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the complaint
filed by the petitioner within a time bound manner.
8. As submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that recovery
certificate dated 11/15.01.2013 has not been complied with till date.
9. The respondent no. 2 is directed to execute the recovery
pursuant to requisition certificate dated 11/15.01/2013 within two
weeks from today.
10. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the Parties under the
Signatures of the Court Master.
SURESH KAIT, J
DECEMBER 12, 2014
jg
