Delhi High Court
All India General Kamgar Union vs Jawaharlal Nehru Univerisity ... on 26 November, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision:- 26.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 10137/2019 & C.M.No.41876/2019
ALL INDIA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gunjan Singh and Mr. Arun Kasi,
Advs.
versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERISITY (JNU) AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, Mr. Navdeep
Singh and Mr. Parth Shekhar, Advs. for R1.
Mr. Harneet Kaur, Adv. for R2.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali
Noor and Mr. Rohan Anand, Advs. for R3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition filed by the All India General Kamgar
Union seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to terminate
the services of 500 Security Guards, who claim to be working in the
premises of the respondent No.1-University, on the ground that they
are employees of the respondent no.1, and not of the respondent no.2
contractor as the contract between the respondent nos.1 and 2 was a
sham and camouflage.
2. As the petition did not furnish details of the 500 workmen
whose interest it claims to espouse, the petitioner was granted time to
file a list of these workmen along with their details.
3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a list of 11 workmen, who
are claiming to have been discharging duties in the post of 'Security
WP (C) No.10137/2019 Page 1 of 5
Guard' within the premises of respondent no.1 for the last 10 years,
starting from dates ranging between November, 2010 to July, 2013.
4. On 20.09.2019 even though the respondents had vehemently
opposed the maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 had categorically submitted that it was willing to
re-engage these workmen on available sites in the NCR and pay them
the applicable wages. On that day this Court had, in view of the
petitioner's submissions that the workmen apprehended being
removed from service without any notice, directed the respondent
no.1 to maintain status quo with respect to the services of the 11
Security Guards, which interim order has continued till date.
5. On 16.10.2019, the respondent no.1 had informed this Court
that out of the 11 workmen who had been granted protection, only 10
had reported for duty and were being paid their due wages. When the
matter was subsequently taken up for hearing on 06.11.2019, the
learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that these 10
workmen were willing to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour
Court but had prayed for grant of interim protection to the workmen
till the final adjudication of the industrial dispute proposed to be
raised by them, so that they are not rendered without any source of
income during the pendency of their claim before the Labour Court.
For this purpose, the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of
this Court in WP (C) No.4642/2014 titled 'Ram Chander and Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.' and WP (C) No. 2203/2019 titled Vishant
Kumar Kholiya & Ors. Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation &
Anr.
WP (C) No.10137/2019 Page 2 of 5
6. Thereafter this Court, in view of the petitioner's stand that the
workman were intending to raise an industrial dispute and the oral
request for impleadment made by the parties had impleaded the Union
of India through Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi as
respondent no.3. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned standing counsel for the
newly impleaded respondent no.3 was directed to get instructions as
to the time frame within which a reference could be made by
respondent no.3 in case a dispute is raised by the workmen. Today,
Mr. Singh submits that the respondent no.3 would positively make a
reference within a period of two months from the date of receiving the
reply filed by the respondent no.1, to the workmen's claim petition.
7. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner once again prays for
maintenance of status quo with respect to the services of the workmen
till the time the industrial dispute is decided. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposes this prayer in view of
the undertaking given by the respondent no.2 assuring a job to these
workmen, in the interregnum. She further submits that even
otherwise, these workmen can no longer be engaged at the premises of
the respondent no.1 in light of the fact that in terms of its new contract
with M/s Cyclops Security and Allied Services Private Limited, only
ex-servicemen are being engaged as Security Guards in its premises.
This assertion is, however, vehemently disputed by learned counsel
for the petitioner, who submits that even today a number of security
personnel working at the premises of the respondent no.1 are not ex-
servicemen.
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the
WP (C) No.10137/2019 Page 3 of 5
view that in the light of the specific undertaking given by the
respondent no.2 that these 10 workmen will be assigned work in the
NCR in case they report for duty within 10 days for which they would
be paid applicable wages, it cannot be said that if interim protection is
not granted, the workman would be rendered without any source of
income during the pendency of the industrial dispute. I have also
considered the decisions in Ram Chander and Ors. Vs. Union of
India (supra) and Vishant Kumar Kholiya & Ors. (supra) relied upon
by the petitioner and find that the same are wholly inapplicable to the
facts of the present case. In the cases referred to by the petitioner, non
grant of interim relief to the workmen would have rendered them
jobless, whereas in the present case once the respondent no.2 has
given an assurance to engage the workmen, no case is made out for
granting interim protection to the petitioner-workman for the entire
period during which their dispute remains pending before the Labour
Court.
9. Even though no case is made out for granting interim protection
to the workmen during the entire pendency of their dispute before the
Court, in the interest of justice, the interim protection already granted
to them vide order dated 20.09.2019 shall continue for a further period
of two months from the date of reference. This protection is being
granted to enable the workmen to make alternate arrangements, as
their primary grievance before this Court has been that in case they
are deployed elsewhere by the respondent no.2, their families
including their school going children, who are presently residing in
the vicinity of the respondent no.1's premises, will be adversely
WP (C) No.10137/2019 Page 4 of 5
effected. It is, however, made clear that in case the workmen rejoin
the services of respondent no.2, in terms of the offer made by the
respondent no.2 before this Court, the same will not in any manner be
construed as a relinquishment of their claim that the contract between
the respondent nos.1 and 2 was a sham and a camouflage and they
were, in fact, employees of the respondent no.1. It is also made clear
that it will be open for the Labour Court to examine all the pleas of
the workmen on its own merits.
10. However, since the workmen are stated to have already filed
their claim petition today, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to
file their respective responses to the said claim petition within a
period of two weeks. The time granted to the respondents is being
curtailed in view of their stand in these proceedings which indicates
that there is no possibility of any conciliation between the parties. The
respondent no.3 is further directed to make the appropriate reference
within a period of four weeks, on receiving the replies of the
respondents nos.1 and 2.
11. Needless to say, in case any of the workmen are found guilty of
any kind of misconduct, the respondent no.2 will be entitled to take
action against them, as per law.
12. The writ petition, along with pending application, is disposed of
in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2019/'SDP'
