Ram Kishan vs Asst. Labour Commissioner & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6741 Del

$~12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

              Judgment delivered on: 12th December, 2014

+       W.P.(C) 1036/2014

RAM KISHAN                                           ..... Petitioner
                              Represented by:   Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal,
                                                Adv.

                     versus

ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.        ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Ms.Raavi Birbal, Adv.
                                  for R-1.
                                  Ms. Saroj Bidawat,
                                  Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.19848/2014

1. Vide the instant application, the applicant/petitioner has prayed to allow the applicant to implead South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) in place of respondent no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent NO.2 may be deleted from the array of parties.

3. It is ordered accordingly.

4. SDMC, through its Commissioner is impleaded as respondent No.2 in place of NDMC. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

5. The application is allowed.

W.P.(C) No. 1036/2014

6. Vide order dated 20.11.2006, the learned Labour Court passed award in favour of the petitioner whereby directed to regularise petitioner keeping in mind the seniority from 15.10.1980 as per policy of regularization of the Management. Respondent No.1, thereafter, published the award and not taken any steps to get the same implemented.

7. At last, petitioner filed a complaint in the month of September, 2011 under Section 2(RA) read with Section 85U of the Act to prosecute respondent No.2. However, till date the respondent No.1 has not decided the same.

8. Vide order dated 28.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 7317/2014, this Court directed the authority concerned to decide such complaints within maximum period of three months from its institution. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the complaint in the month of September, 2011, but till date it is not disposed of.

9. I hereby make it clear that the respondent No.1 is the competent authority to decide the complaint. Accordingly,

respondent No.1 is directed to decide the same within two weeks from today.

10. Before parting from this matter, it is important to note that due to the reasons recorded above, petitioner was compelled to file the present petition, therefore, the cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on respondent No.1 to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks.

11. In view of above terms, the instant petition is allowed.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti to the Parties under the Signatures of the Court Master.

SURESH KAIT, J

DECEMBER 12, 2014 mr/jg