PFIZER LIMITED THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR SAMIR KAZI vs GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 924/2022 & CM APPL. 2666/2022 PFIZER LIMITED THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR SAMIR KAZI .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ajit Makhijani, Mr Gaurav Bahl, and Mr Amit Yadav, Advocates. versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Atik Gill and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Mr. Satyendra Mishra and Mr. Ahmad Khan, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition seeks to challenge the order of reference dated 04.03.2021 [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”] passed by the Respondent No.2, referring a dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. An additional prayer is also being made by the Petitioner seeking directions to quash all proceedings emanating from the Impugned Order. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is in a narrow compass. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.07.2025 W.P.(C) 924/2022 Page 1 of 8 12:35:14 exercised the powers and authority vested in it prior to passing the Impugned Order. It is stated that the powers of the Respondent No.2 as a referring authority are to be exercised by applying its mind to relevant factors prior to referring a dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. It is the contention of the Petitioner that unless the aspect of maintainability and jurisdiction is decided by the Referral Authority appointed by Respondent No.1 [hereinafter referred to as the “Referral Authority”], the terms of reference cannot be set out, r