Whether high court answerable under rti act

skg (Querist) 27 July 2013 This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts

In a labour case during extra ordinary writ petition, Delhi High Court in May 2011 to purge the contempt of court order by management and on request of workmen for expeditious disposal of his case by labour court which was hanging at evidence stage after 3 years i.e year 2008 years gave order to the Labour court to dispose the labour case before January 2012.

But the labour court worked on the same pace and ignored the direction of High Court and has now reached at the stage of giving judgement in March'2013.

Since MArch'2013 it is keep on giving further dates for judgement.

My question to experts is that whether workmen can ask High Court under RTI Act about its power on labour court i.e. whether labour court can ignore direction of High court.

Whether interim releif of livelihood under valid article of constitution of India by an unemployed workmen and the entire suffering family can be directly applied to High Court now since the case have now delayed despite its order.

Rgds
skg

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 27 July 2013
Dear Querist
Its depend on the HC direction, state full facts of judgement/direction passed by HC to labour COURT.
feel free to call

skg (Querist) 27 July 2013
Dear Mr. Nadeem or other experts,

Pls find the actual extract of the order of High Court for your valuable opinions on the above subject.

"----- start as :-

1. The writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 1st March, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator dismissing the

application of the employer for amendment of the reply/written statement. Notice of the writ petition was issued on 2nd May,

2011 for today on the condition that the proceedings underway before the Industrial Adjudicator will not be held up for this

reason of pendency of this writ petition and no date shall be taken before the Industrial Adjudicator on the ground of

pendency of this petition.

2. Contempt petition has been filed by the workman on the ground that notwithstanding the direction to the employer not to

take adjournment before the Industrial Adjudicator, on 4th May, 2011 when the matter was listed before the Industrial

Adjudicator, adjournment was taken on the ground of the pendency of the present writ petition.

3. The senior counsel for the employer has fairly conceded that what transpired before the Industrial Adjudicator is in

contempt of the order dated 2nd May, 2011 in the writ petition. He under instructions also tenders
unqualified apology for the same and has explained the circumstances in which the mistake occurred.

4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the workman as to whether the workman by way of punishment of the said contempt

wants the writ petition to be dismissed or desires the contempt to be purged in other manner. He states that the workman is

interested in expeditious disposal of the dispute before the Industrial Adjudicator.

5. On enquiry, the senior counsel for the employer states that the amendments claimed are threefold; firstly qua the

territorial jurisdiction, with the submission being that the employment was at Noida and hence the Government of National

Capital Territorial of Delhi would not be the appropriate government to make reference; secondly that the factory at Noida

where the workman was employed has been closed down and lastly that an option had been given to the workman to join at the

alternative factory of the employer at Thane, Maharashtra.

6. The counsel for the workman has stated that the offer was conditional and the workman could not be expected to re-locate

faraway when the other establishments of the employer are running in the vicinity.

7. In view of the aforesaid, it has been put to the senior counsel for the employer that to purge the contempt, the

objection as to territorial jurisdiction be given up in toto, not to be pressed at any stage of the proceedings. The senior

counsel on instructions is agreeable to the same.

8. The counsel for the workman also states that the employer notwithstanding demand has not been issuing the “Experience

Certificate” and owing whereto the workman is unable to get employment anywhere else.

9. The senior counsel for the employer under instructions states that “Experience Certificate” was tendered before the

Industrial Adjudicator and another copy of the same would be furnished.

10. The counsel for the workman however states that the “Experience Certificate” is not in the required format and states

that the format in which the certificate is required shall be furnished. The senior counsel for the employer on instructions

states that unless there is any objection to the said format, the Experience Certificate as desired shall be furnished

immediately.

11. In the circumstances, the writ petition and the contempt case are disposed of with the following directions:-

a) The order dated 1st March, 2011 of the Industrial Adjudicator in so far as dismissing the application for amendment qua

the pleas of close down of the factory and offer of alternative appointment as mentioned in the application is set aside and

the amendments to the said effect are allowed.

b) The contempt committed by the employer is permitted to be purged on the condition that the employer shall at no stage in

the proceedings object to the reference being made by the appropriate government or to the territorial jurisdiction of the

Industrial Adjudicator.

c) The employer to file the amended reply/written statement within one week and rejoinder thereto be filed by the workman on

or before the next date before the Industrial Adjudicator i.e. 5th July, 2011.

d) The Industrial Adjudicator to decide the dispute on or before 31st January, 2012.

e) The employer to also pay costs of `7,500/- of these proceedings to the workman on or before the next date before the

Industrial Adjudicator i.e. 5th July, 2011.

f) The controversy if any qua experience certificate be also resolved by the Industrial Adjudicator.

------- ends "

skg

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 27 July 2013
you asked :-

"My question to experts is that whether workmen can ask High Court under RTI Act about its power on labour court i.e. whether labour court can ignore direction of High court."

you cannot seek free legal advise under RTI Act.