Delhi High Court
M/S Deepak Memorial Hospital ... vs Mgt. Of Deepak Memorial Hospital & ... on 13 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: December 13, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 5887/2013
M/S DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION
(REGD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Krishna Chandra Dubey,
Advocate
versus
MGT. OF DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
RESEARCH CENTRE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Harvinder Singh and Mr.
Sandeep Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 28th February, 2012 (Annexure P-1) rejects
petitioner's application of 8th August, 2011 under Section 29 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act') for
violations of terms of Agreements entered into between the Management
and the Employees' Union on 23rd July, 1996, 21st October, 2003 and 27th
January, 2005. Petitioner's another similar application of 5th December,
2011 alleging violation of paragraphs No.3 & 5 of Settlement of 16 th
September, 2006 also stands dismissed vide impugned order of 28th
February, 2012.
2. Impugned order of 28th February, 2012 (Annexure P-1) notes the
stand of the parties and refers to the record of the Management to the
effect that 44 workers are covered by the Employees' State Insurance
Company (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') in terms of the Agreement
of 16th September, 2006 and the Management is contributing towards
ESIC for these workers and there is no legal liability of the Management
to provide free medical facilities to these workers as they are not covered
by ESIC Policy. The stand of management of there being no violation of
paragraph No.5 of the Settlement of 16th September, 2006 is also adverted
to in the impugned order and cryptically the concerned Deputy Labour
Commissioner concludes in the impugned order that the stand of
petitioner-workers is not legally tenable. No reasoning to arrive at the
aforesaid conclusion is forthcoming in the impugned order. The operative
portion of the impugned order refers to the consensus of a draft fresh
settlement and it is stated in the impugned order that no fresh settlement
could be arrived at, despite meetings being held by the Management and
the Workers on different dates.
3. Upon hearing, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained
as it does not consider petitioner's application of 8 th August, 2011 in
proper perspective. Reference to the Settlement of 16 th September, 2006
in the impugned order is not required to be gone into, as during the course
of hearing, both the sides had submitted that the challenge to the legality
of these Settlements is sub judice before the concerned Industrial
Tribunal and now, the petition challenging the Settlement of 16 th
September, 2006 stands dismissed in default.
4. Be that as it may. Since it is stand of respondent-Management that
there is no violation of the aforesaid four Settlements, therefore, the
concerned Authority is required to pass a speaking order regarding
purported violation of the afore-referred Agreements. In light of the
above, impugned order of 28th February, 2012 (Annexure P-1) is hereby
quashed while expressing no opinion on the merits, and with direction to
the concerned Authority to reconsider petitioner' applications of 8 th
August, 2011 and 5th December, 2011 expeditiously and to pass a
speaking order thereon.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2018
s
