Delhi High Court · 2025-01-15
INDIAN NATIONAL MIGRANT WORKERS UNION vs SUNITA CHOUDHARY, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CONT.CAS(C)-368/2023 2025:DHC:235
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- INDIAN NATIONAL MIGRANT WORKERS UNION
- Respondent
- SUNITA CHOUDHARY, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~116 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 368/2023& CM APPL. 21025/2024 INDIAN NATIONAL MIGRANT WORKERS UNION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Biswambar Nayak, Advocate. versus SUNITA CHOUDHARY, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manu Prabhakar, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate for R- 3(through VC). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN ORDER % 15.01.2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by Indian National Migrant Workers Union. 2. The above Union is aggrieved by action of the respondents whereby services of one workman i.e. Saurav Kumar has been terminated vide letter dated 27.02.2023, without complying Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contrary to the specific directions passed by this Court. 3. The above Union had, earlier, filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 15225/2022 and when the above said writ petition was taken up by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.12.2022, while issuing notice, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 368/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:17.01.2025 16:43:34 following relief was granted to 31 workmen who had been, allegedly, terminated: - “2. Till the next date, the respondents will ensure that provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 are scrupulously followed.” 4. During course of arguments, it also came to fore that the above said writ petition has already been disposed of by this Court on 08.04.2024, observing as under:- “4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. After perusal of the record, contentions made in the petition as well as the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and no objection from the respondents, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the