Delhi High Court
Nanda Boishya & Ors. vs Ashok Hotel & Anr. on 17 June, 2022
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17th June, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 9511/2022
NANDA BOISHYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Mr. J.P. Singh and
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocates.
versus
ASHOK HOTEL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sumitra Choudhary & Ms. Renu Bajpai,
Advocates for R-1
Mr. Shikhar Sardana and Mr. Ajay Singh,
Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JYOTI SINGH, J (ORAL)
CM APPL. 28383/2022 & 28384/2022 (Exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
WP(C) 9511/2022 and CM APPL. 28382/2022 (stay)
1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking
quashing of the letter dated 01.06.2022 issued by Respondent No.2 whereby
the services of the Petitioners are sought to be discontinued with effect from
11.06.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are
Ex-servicemen and have been working with Respondent No.1 for a long
period as Security Guards. He further submits that there are several
litigations which are pending between Respondent No.1 herein and its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:20.06.2022
19:12:49
employees relating to the regularization policy, status of employment, etc. It
is further submitted that recently, in another petition being WP(C)
4774/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2020
had protected the services of the Security Guards of the Hotel by directing
that if any new contractor is engaged by ITDC, services of the Petitioners
therein shall not be terminated and they shall be allowed to perform the
same duties as they are currently performing.
3. Mr. Ravi Sikri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.1, on instructions, fairly and candidly submits that a new
contractor has been appointed and he is willing to employ the Petitioners,
however, with a caveat that the salary and emoluments as well as other
terms and conditions of service would not be at par with those employed as
per the Directorate General of Re-settlement ('DGR') Rates and terms.
4. After some hearing, Mr. A.P. Dhamija, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that since the Petitioners
have been working with Respondent No.1 for many years and at this stage
will be unable to find any other employment, they are willing to be
employed under the new contractor, with a caveat that they may be given
liberty to raise the issues of salary, etc. in an appropriate Forum.
5. Mr. Sikri has no objection to the said arrangement provided the rights
and contentions of Respondent No.1 with respect to other issues relating to
salary, emoluments, conditions of service are left open.
6. In view of the aforesaid, Petitioners are at liberty to join the new
contractor appointed by Respondent No.1. As agreed, the joining of the
Petitioners would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties to the lis, with respect to salaries and emoluments and other terms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:20.06.2022
19:12:49
and conditions of service, which they are at liberty to raise in an appropriate
Forum.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the issues raised herein.
8. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 17, 2022/rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:20.06.2022
19:12:49
