Delhi High Court
Pooja Saroj vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment ... on 10 February, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10th February, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 2595/2022
POOJA SAROJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Mishra, Mr.
Aditya Kadian and Ms .Pragya
Dubey, Advocates.
versus
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVT. OF
INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.
Kamal R. Digpaul, Advocates for R-
1, 3 & 4.
Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC, with Ms.
Sanjana Nangia, Advocate for
GNCTD/R-2.
Mr. Abhinav Mukhi, Advocate for
ICICI Bank.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
CM APPL.7416/2022 (for exemption from affirmed affidavit and court
fee)
2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing court fees and
duly affirmed affidavits along with the present petition. Binding the
deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is
granted. Insofar as the court fee is concerned, the same shall be deposited
within one week after the reopening of the physical Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
3. Application is disposed of in above terms. Registry to submit a report
before the next date of hearing in case the court fees is not filed within the
stipulated period.
W.P.(C) 2595/2022 & CM APPL.7415/2022 (interim relief)
4. The present petition raises two issues. The first issue relates to the
status of the Petitioner's case before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (hereinafter "CGIT") and secondly, relating to the non-availability
of proceeding sheets, orders and other data relating to the pending cases of
the CGIT on its website.
5. The background of the case is that the Petitioner/Workman
(hereinafter "Workman") was working with Respondent No.5-ICICI Bank,
Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension Branch, New Delhi as a Deputy
Manager. She was transferred to Sirsa branch, Haryana by the Respondent
Bank and the same came to be challenged before this Court by way of writ
petition being W.P.(C) 10462/2021 titled Pooja Saroj v. Labour
Commissioner & Ors. Since the Workman did not join in Sirsa, the services
of the Petitioner were terminated by the Bank. Allegedly, the reason why
the Petitioner states that she could not join at Sirsa branch, was because her
residence was in Delhi and she was also having some medical conditions
due to COVID-19. However, the Bank decided to terminate her.
6. This Court had, vide order dated 1st October, 2021 in W.P.(C)
10462/2021 challenging the order of transfer, directed the Workman to avail
of her remedies in according with law before the appropriate authority. The
directions given in the said order read as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
"5. Since the Petitioner has now been terminated
from service, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of
her remedies in accordance with law, before the
appropriate authority. Needless to add that if the
Petitioner approaches the authorities concerned,
the authorities shall take up the matter on an
urgent basis and decide it expeditiously within a
period of 3 months from the date of first hearing."
7. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner approached the CGIT in
October, 2021 vide DID No. 123/2021/1964 titled Pooja Saroj v. ICICI
Bank. The matter was stated to be listed before the CGIT on 16th November,
2021 and on 4th January, 2022. On the last date of hearing, the matter is
stated to have been simply adjourned to 6th April, 2022. Mr. Mishra, ld.
counsel for the Workman, submits that the orders of the said dates are not
available on the website of CGIT. Additionally, only one bench of the CGIT
is stated to be functioning. Further he submits that the data relating to the
CGIT in respect of number of cases and the pendency thereof are also not
available on the CGIT website. He contrasts this position with the Labour
Courts of GNCTD wherein the said Labour Courts are duly integrated with
the eCourts India website and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and
all the data is available online for the litigants. He submits that as per the
Zero Pendency Courts Project report, which is a pilot project undertaken by
the High Court of Delhi, there were various steps which were suggested to
be taken in respect of Labour Courts, however the CGIT does not
specifically fall under the umbrella of Labour Court. He submits that the
litigants before the CGIT are being prejudiced due to non-availability of
adequate number of Benches, non-availability of order sheets and
proceedings on a daily basis. Moreover, the judgments passed by the CGIT
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
are not being uploaded in a timely manner. He also submits that the CGIT is
grossly understaffed leading to enormous pendency, the data of which is not
even available.
8. Mr. Digpaul, ld. counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that
he is not aware about the situation qua the CGIT in respect of staffing and
the number of Benches and other issues raised by the ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner before this Court.
9. In this respect, it is pertinent to point out that this Court on an earlier
occasion in order dated 30th November 2021 in W.P.(C) 7727/2019 titled
SDMC v. Satish & Ors. directed that the Labour Courts and the CGIT ought
to upload their orders within 48 hours. The relevant extract of the said order
is as follows-
"9. Needless to add, in this digital age, all orders of
the Labour Courts and of the CGIT including the
Awards, ought to be uploaded on the respective
website of the Labour Court /CGIT within 48 hours
of the same being passed, so that if parties wish to
avail of their remedies, they are able to do so, in
accordance with law, irrespective of whether the
certified copies of the orders/Awards are available or
the Awards are published or not. This order shall be
implemented by all Labour Courts and CGIT with
immediate effect.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
worthy Registrar General, Delhi High Court who shall
communicate the same to the concerned District
Judges as also the Presiding Officers at the Labour
Court and the CGIT to ensure compliance of the above
direction."
10. The court has accessed the respective websites of Labour Courts and
CGIT and observed that data relating to Labour Courts are accessible on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
eCourts India website, however the CGIT data is not available. In view of
the submissions made before the Court today, this Court is of the prima
facie view that the directions given in the aforementioned order by this
Court have not been given effect to by the CGIT. Therefore, an explanation
is due from the Registrar, CGIT as to what steps were taken pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court.
11. Insofar as the facts of the case at hand are concerned, submission of
Mr. Mishra is that the Workman is a young professional who wishes to seek
an alternate employment if the Respondent No.5-ICICI Bank is not willing
to take her back. Under such circumstances, he submits that the proper
relieving letter ought to be given by the Respondent Bank and various
statutory dues ought to be paid to the Workman in accordance with law.
12. Mr. Mukhi, ld. counsel appearing for the ICICI Bank submits that
without prejudice to the contentions on merits, the Respondent Bank is
willing to explore amicable resolution of the dispute with the Workman so
that her career is not jeopardized in any manner.
13. In the above circumstances, the following directions are issued-
(1) The Respondent Bank and the Workman shall appear before the
Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 21st
February, 2022 at 2:00 pm to explore the possibility of amicable
resolution, both with regard to the relieving letter as also in respect
of all the dues to which the Petitioner is entitled to in terms of her
employment conditions. The parties shall appear before the
mediation centre either virtually or physically subject to the
convenience of the ld. Mediator and the parties. A competent
official from the ICICI Bank, who is empowered to take decisions,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
shall remain present as also the Workman so that the resolution of
the dispute is ensured on an early date.
(2) The Respondent Nos.1 & 3 shall place a status report as to the
status of the CGIT in terms of the appointments and number of
Benches which are currently functioning. The details in the said
status report shall contain the following details-
(i) Staffing in the CGIT; whether any further staff and
infrastructure is required to handle the current
backlog of cases.
(ii) Whether the Central Government has
contemplated integration of CGIT website with
eCourts India website/NJDG and whether there
are any proposals to this effect, which are pending.
(iii) The timeline within which all the data relating to
the pendency before the CGIT, the order sheets
and the judgments of the CGIT to be uploaded on
its own website will be implemented.
(3) The reports shall be filed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 within a
period of four weeks.
(4) The Registrar, CGIT shall place an affidavit before this Court
as the steps taken by the CGIT to implement the directions
contained in order dated 30th November, 2021 passed in W.P.(C)
7727/2019 titled SDMC v. Satish passed by this Court as also the
reason for delay in the implementation of the said directions. The
said affidavit shall be filed within 4 weeks.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:12.02.2022
08:55:53
14. Let the matter be listed on 5th April, 2022 for receiving the status
report, the affidavits as also the outcome of the mediation proceedings.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 10, 2022/dk/sk
