Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anil Kumar Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Anil Kumar vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 19, 1996
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/699842

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 1996 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 726 and 1451 of 1996
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 2(a)(i)(v) r/w 10--Appropriate Government--Employee of Air India Ltd., i.e. a Government Corporation--The employees falling within an 'A Transport Service'--The appropriate govt. is Central Government--Matter remanded to Central Government to reconsider its decision refusing to...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar

Advocate Rudra Kehlon,; Lalit Bhasin,; Ratna Dwivedi and;

Respondent

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

Legal References

Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2
Reported In
1996(37)DRJ474; (1996)IILLJ1543Del

Excerpt

industrial disputes act 1947 - section 2(a)(i)(v) r/w 10--appropriate government--employee of air india ltd., i.e. a government corporation--the employees falling within an 'a transport service'--the appropriate govt. is central government--matter remanded to central government to reconsider its decision refusing to refer the dispute. - .....i have also heard counsel for the respondents, who in the light of the said amendment, are no longer opposing the question of jurisdiction of the central government to deal with the above dispute. they also have no objection to the central government being approached as the appropriate government to conciliate/deal with or refer the dispute for adjudication. they also did not press their objection that in respect of respondent no.4, i.e., chief air limited, the central government is not the appropriate government. it is also not disputed that the entire dispute, if not resolved at the conciliation level, could, if considered proper, be referred for adjudication by the central government, which in any case is the appropriate government in respect of respondent no.2, air india limited.(4) in view of the aforesaid, the central government (respondents no.1 and 6) is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of what is observed hereinabove within six weeks of the receipt of this order. nothing further survives in this writ petition. the same is disposed of in terms of the above order with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

J.K. Mehra, J.

(1) The present Writ Petition has arisen out of dispute raised by the petitioner, who is employed in the canteen and the flight kitchen run by respondents No.4 and 5 for respondents No.2 and 3. They raised the dispute against respondents 2 to 5 against the decision of respondent No.1, i.e., the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), refusing to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against respondents No.2 to 5 on the ground that the Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration and not respondent No.1 has jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(2) For the purpose of the present Writ Petition, it is not necessary to go into the nature of the dispute wherein the petitioner is claiming to be employee of respondent No.2, Air India Limited, who according to him, is the real employer. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the dispute at this stage.

(3) Apparently, the impugned decision was rendered on account of some confusion as to whether the Central Government is continuing to be the appropriate Government in respect of the disputes involving Air India Limited after its corporation as a Company and its ceasing to be a Corporation under Central Government. That confusion is no longer subsisting in view of the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act in Section 2(a)(i)(v) by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance Act whereby Central Government would be the appropriate Government in respect of, inter-alia, 'An Air Transport Service.' In the light of this amendment, there is no confusion that it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government. I have also heard counsel for the respondents, who in the light of the said amendment, are no longer opposing the question of jurisdiction of the Central Government to deal with the above dispute. They also have no objection to the Central Government being approached as the appropriate Government to conciliate/deal with or refer the dispute for adjudication. They also did not press their objection that in respect of respondent No.4, i.e., Chief Air Limited, the Central Government is not the appropriate Government. It is also not disputed that the entire dispute, if not resolved at the conciliation level, could, if considered proper, be referred for adjudication by the Central Government, which in any case is the appropriate Government in respect of respondent No.2, Air India Limited.

(4) In view of the aforesaid, the Central Government (Respondents No.1 and 6) is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of what is observed hereinabove within six weeks of the receipt of this order. Nothing further survives in this Writ Petition. The same is disposed of in terms of the above order with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial