Shardendu vs Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 19 May, 1998
Showing the contexts in which working journalist act doctypes: delhi appears in the document
Delhi High Court Shardendu vs Labour Commissioner And Ors. on 19 May, 1998 Equivalent citations: (1999) ILLJ 471 Del Bench: R Lahoti, M Mudgal ORDER 1. Heard finally. Rule D.B. The petitioner seeking recovery of his claims and dues against his employer, the Respondent No. 3, has filed this petition seeking quashing of an order of reference made under Section 17(2) of WorkingJournalists And Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. 2. It appears that the petitioner was in employment of Respondent No.3. He was transferred from Bhopal to Lucknow. There is a dispute whether the petitioner rendered any service to Respondent No.3 after his transfer to Lucknow. The fact remains that the petitioner preferred a claim before the Labour Commissioner, Delhi. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner is to be found at pages 62 to 69 of the paper book. The petitioner
raised a claim for an amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- 3. Before the Labour Commissioner, the Respondent No.2 did not file any written statement. The proceedings witnessed only adjournments. On December 20,1993, in the presence of both the parties, the next date of hearing was fixed as January 17,1994 at 11.00 A.M. Surprisingly, the matter was taken up by the Labour Commissioner on December 29, 1993 and he passed the following order : "The issue involved is regarding recovery of dues from the Management of Associated Journal Ltd., u/S 17 of the WorkingJournalists Act. The said certificate for recovery may be issued by designated Inspector under the Act under Section 17-B. Sd.-29.12.93" ........... (Cell) may please take the issue with Section(L) 4. It appears that the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi formed an opinion that there was a dispute regarding dues payable to the petitioner and hence directed a reference to be made under Section 17(2) of theAct vide order of reference Annexure-VII requiring the Labour Court No. IX to adjudicate upon the dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim preferred
raised a claim for an amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- 3. Before the Labour Commissioner, the Respondent No.2 did not file any written statement. The proceedings witnessed only adjournments. On December 20,1993, in the presence of both the parties, the next date of hearing was fixed as January 17,1994 at 11.00 A.M. Surprisingly, the matter was taken up by the Labour Commissioner on December 29, 1993 and he passed the following order : "The issue involved is regarding recovery of dues from the Management of Associated Journal Ltd., u/S 17 of the WorkingJournalists Act. The said certificate for recovery may be issued by designated Inspector under the Act under Section 17-B. Sd.-29.12.93" ........... (Cell) may please take the issue with Section(L) 4. It appears that the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi formed an opinion that there was a dispute regarding dues payable to the petitioner and hence directed a reference to be made under Section 17(2) of theAct vide order of reference Annexure-VII requiring the Labour Court No. IX to adjudicate upon the dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim preferred
No comments:
Post a Comment