AGGARWAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the petitioner assailing Annexure P-1 in both the petitions, i.e., Orders dtd. 7/4/2014 in F.25(1)/ALC/PW/DLC/NDD/2014/934 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (New Delhi), Labour Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi and 21/2/2014 in F/l/PW/ALC/NDD/2017/466 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, District New Delhi, Women and Child Development Department Building, New Delhi, whereby respondent no.1 while dealing with an application dtd. 14/2/2014 pertaining to the recognition of protected workmen declared seven office bearers of respondent no. 2 as 'Protected Workman'.

(2.) The short factual background of the case is as follows: The petitioner is a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at P-16, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner is involved in hospitality business and has two hotels, namely, M/s Hotel Alka and M/s Hotel Alka Annexe in New Delhi, and a restaurant, namely, M/s M/S Tavern on the Greens at Lado Sarai, New Delhi. The petitioner has approximately 80 employees. Respondent no. 2, claiming to be a registered trade Union, submitted an application dtd. 21/1/2014, i.e., Annexure P-3, before the petitioner on 24/1/2014, seeking a declaration of seven of its office bearers as 'protected workmen'.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/management that respondent no. 1 has grossly erred in allowing the application submitted by the second respondent and declaring the seven workmen mentioned therein as protected workmen, without considering whether they satisfied the essential requirements of Rule 61 of the Rules. It is submitted that as long as disciplinary proceedings are pending, no such protection could have been given. Further, mere existence of an employer - employee relationship between the parties is no ground to grant the status of protected workman to workmen who were facing disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, there are rival claimants to the very same Union. Despite this, respondent No. 2 has not produced any documents to establish that they are the actual Union representing the employees of the petitioner/management. None of the documents sought by the petitioner/management have been produced by respondent No. 2. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order, which reflects no application of mind and non examination or consideration of the material aspects, cannot be sustained for a moment. It is also submitted that the application dtd. 21/1/2014 submitted by respondent No. 2 to the petitionermanagement was premature and, therefore, could not have been considered.