Delhi High Court
Delhi Multi Story Building ... vs The Management Of Institute Of ... on 21 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 21, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3428/2017
DELHI MULTI STORY BUILDING EMPLOYEES CONGRESS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Taiyab Khan and Mr. A.K.
Suri, Advocates
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTE OF HUMAN
BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES & ANR ....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.D. Singh and Mr. Rahul
Kumar Singh, Advocates for
respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
C.M. 14975/2017 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3428/2017 & C.M.14974/2017 (stay)
Petitioners are the outsourced persons/manpower provided by
respondent No.2 to first respondent way back in the year 2008-09.
Petitioners had sought Reference in May, 2015 to seek regularization of
their service on the post of Attendants and had demanded wages at par
with the regular employees of first respondent. The said Reference is
pending at the pleading stage. First respondent had issued notice inviting
Tender for providing manpower service on outsource basis in March,
2017. Apprehending their ouster pending the Reference, petitioners had
filed an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
to restrain first respondent from changing their service conditions by
issuing fresh Tender for manpower (Annexure P-10). The said application
stands rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order of 29th March, 2017.
The Tribunal while relying upon this Court's decision in W.P.(C)
16649/2004 titled Airport Authority of India v. Pyare Lal and Others
rendered on 17th November, 2006 has dismissed petitioners' application.
Impugned order proceeds on the premise that if petitioners are permitted
to work, then they would acquire a right and by way of interim relief,
main relief cannot be granted.
Learned counsel for petitioners assails impugned order on the
ground that petitioners are working with first respondent for last more
than 8 years and they have rendered satisfactory service and if first
respondent is permitted to have fresh manpower from another outsource,
then it would have an effect of dislodging petitioners from service and
would infact render the Reference infructuous. So, it is submitted that
during the pendency of Reference, petitioners ought to be permitted to
continue to work as petitioners will not be claiming to any right by virtue
of the order passed herein because the said right would be determined on
merits at the time of decision of the Reference.
The opposition to this petition by learned counsel for contesting
respondent No.1 is on the ground that petitioners in collusion with
respondent No.2 herein had filed an application under Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to thwart the effort of first respondent to
have fresh manpower as petitioners are not rendering efficient service.
Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 submits that there is no
privity of contract between first respondent and petitioners, and even if it
is taken that petitioners are likely to succeed in the Reference, still they
would be entitled to the consequential relief of reinstatement and back-
wages, etc. and so, for efficient functioning of first respondent, fresh
manpower is needed. Nothing else is urged on behalf of either side.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and the decisions referred to in the impugned order, I find that the
Tribunal has relied upon a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Batra Hospital Employees Union v. The Management of Batra
Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Del
1606 to reject petitioners' application. In Batra Hospital (supra), the
main relief was of regularization and the said relief was to be adjudicated
upon after recording of evidence and in such a case, grant of interim
protection against termination has been held to be tantamount to granting
of main relief itself and the similar application was thus declined. I find
no reason to take a different view than the one taken in Batra Hospital
(supra).
In view of aforesaid, I find rejection of petitioners' application is
amply justified and as such, this petition and the application are dismissed
while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 21, 2017
s
