Delhi High Court · 2026-04-15
M/S IBP COMPANY LIMITED vs MR SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ANR
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-5844/2005 2026:DHC:3085
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S IBP COMPANY LIMITED
- Respondent
- MR SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ANR
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Date of decision: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 5844/2005 & CM APPL. 4367/2005 M/S IBP COMPANY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sauresh Rai, Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Ms. Upasna Singh, Advs. versus MR SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ANR .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT SHAIL JAIN, J 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, assailing the Order dated 05.08.2004 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Labour Court X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The Learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by Petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts at Delhi inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner cannot agitate and press same point already raised before parallel Court. Further holding that if, the management was aggrieved of the said order they should have approached to the Higher Court. Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 5844/2005 Page 1 of 15 KUMAR Signing Date:15.04.2026 15:37:47 BRIEF FACTS: 3. The Petitioner is a Government (Central) company under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, having establishments across India. 4. The Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Fitter on 01.09.1984 and was subsequently transferred to the Petitioner’s Lucknow Division on 01.09.1985, where he continued to discharge his duties. 5. In April 1986, certain acts of alleged misconduct were attributed to the Respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment at Lucknow. Pursuant thereto, Charge-Sheets were issued in the years 1987 and 1988. A domestic enquiry was condu