Delhi High Court
Jawaharlal Nehru University ... vs All India General Kamgar Union & ... on 7 December, 2021
$~8(2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.12.2021
+ LPA 17/2020 & CM APPL. 1365/2020
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY (JNU) ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Ginny J Rautray, Mr. Navdeep
Singh, Ms. Snigdha Ganguly and Mr.
Samrat Anand, Advs.
versus
ALL INDIA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION & ORS .... Respondents
Through : Ms. Amiy Shukla, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Rohan Anand, Advocate for Mr.
Kirtiman Singh, CGSC for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2019,
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10137/2019. The operative
directions are contained in paragraph 9 of the said judgment. For the sake of
convenience, the same is extracted hereafter :
"....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 effected. It is,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:14.12.2021
16:51:38
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....."
2. The record shows that notice in this appeal was issued on 15.01.2020.
On the said date, respondent no.3 i.e., Union of India (UOI) was granted two
weeks to make the reference. Up-until now, respondent no.3/UOI has not
moved in the matter.
2.1. Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says
that this is causing difficulties for the appellant/University.
2.2. On the other hand, Ms. Amiy Shukla, who appears on behalf of
respondent no.1/Union, which represents the workmen herein, says that she,
cannot but accept, the position that the protection granted to the workmen
can continue only for a period of two months from the date when reference
is made.
3. In these circumstances, Ms. Rautray says that this court should call
upon respondent no.3/UOI to make a reference, within the defined timeline.
3.1. We agree with the suggestion put forth by Ms. Rautray.
4. Accordingly, the concerned officer of respondent no.3/UOI will make
a reference within two weeks from today.
4.1 As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, protection qua the
workmen represented by respondent no.1/Union will last only for two
months from the date, when reference is made.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
pending application shall also stand closed.
6. List the writ petition for compliance on 22.12.2021. In case, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:14.12.2021
16:51:38
compliance is not made, the officer concerned in respondent no.3/UOI will
join the proceedings.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
DECEMBER 7, 2021
aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:14.12.2021
16:51:38
