Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Dogra vs Air Force Naval Housing Board & Ors. on 17 February, 2025
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.02.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10176/2024
RAKESH KUMAR DOGRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.
Prerna Tandon and Ms. Shivani
Ghosh, Advs.
versus
AIR FORCE NAVAL HOUSING BOARD & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr.
Ashwin Kataria, Advs. for AFNHB.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for
GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
CM Appl.65457/2024[Seeking condonation of delay]
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking
condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the Review Petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that they have no
objection if the prayers made in the Application, the delay is condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
4. The limited issue that has been raised by the Petitioner in the present
case is that this Court by an order dated 08.08.2024 had directed the
Petitioner to take appropriate remedies for redressal of his grievance before
the Labour Commissioner. Subsequently, when the Petitioner approached
the office of the Labour Commissioner, the Labour Commissioner after
going through the order dated 08.08.2024 passed an order directing that the
office/Delhi Labour Commissioner, GNCTD has no jurisdiction to try and
entertain the complaint.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 fairly submits that in
terms of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mahavir1, this issue is no longer res
integra. She submits that Delhi being a Union Territory, the offices of both
the Labour Commissioner under GNCTD as well as Central Government
Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain and try this Petition,
to that extent she submits that the order passed by the Office of the Labour
Commissioner dated 19.03.2020 is incorrect. Reliance is placed on
paragraph 33 of Mahavir case which is stated below:
"33. Thus even if in a case where Central Government is the appropriate
Government in relation to the disputes arising within the jurisdiction of
NCT the later can also take action in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Rules. We
may also consider the merit of the matter. The services of the concerned
workman had been terminated without complying with the provisions of
section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act."
6. This Court has examined the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court. The Division Bench has found that since the city of Delhi is a
Union Territory under Article 239AA of the Constitution of India, special
powers have been conferred upon the Lt. Governor by the President of India
to do various acts and perform various functions. Given these powers, the
Division Bench found that even in a case where the Central Government is
2002 SCC OnLine Del 1528
the appropriate Government in relation to the disputes arising within the
jurisdiction of NCT the later i.e., NCT of Delhi can also take action in terms
of Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.
7. Thus, the Review Petition is disposed of granting the Petitioner liberty
to approach either the Delhi Labour Commissioner, GNCTD or the Regional
Labour Commissioner for redressal of his grievances. However, it is
clarified that the Court has not examined the matter on merits. All rights and
contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before an appropriate
forum.
8. The parties shall act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2025/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
