Delhi High Court Reiterates Compliance with Interim Protection Orders under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act; Orders Reinstatement of Worker Post ICC Exoneration

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court disposed of the contempt petition filed by the Indian National Migrant Workers Union against the termination of a worker, emphasizing compliance with its earlier interim directions under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Based on the assurance given by ESIC Hospital to reinstate the worker through the new contractor, the petition was deemed resolved. However, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to claim financial benefits for the period of exclusion from employment. It clarified that reinstatement under protection orders does not preclude disciplinary action for any future misconduct.

Facts

1. The Indian National Migrant Workers Union filed a contempt petition regarding the termination of one of its members, a contractual Fire Technician employed by M/s Rudra Enterprises for ESIC Hospital, Okhla.
2. The worker was terminated on February 27, 2023, citing allegations of sexual harassment made by a contractual housekeeping employee.
3. The court, in an earlier order (December 5, 2022), directed the respondents to comply with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, mandating that terminations be approved during pending industrial disputes.
4. The ICC proceedings cleared the worker of the allegations on May 26, 2023, after the complainant chose not to pursue further action.
5. Despite exoneration, the worker was not reinstated, even though 30 other similarly situated workers continued employment under a new contractor.
6. The worker’s termination was linked to the end of M/s Rudra Enterprises’ contractual obligations with ESIC Hospital and UPRNNL as of June 30, 2024.

Issues

1. Did the termination violate the court’s December 2022 interim protection order under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act?
2. Did ICC exoneration necessitate reinstatement of the worker, considering the termination was based on harassment allegations?
3. Should the worker be treated on par with other workers retained by the new contractor?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner union contended:

1. The termination of the worker violated the court’s interim directions and was carried out without due compliance under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The ICC had exonerated the worker, which should have resulted in immediate reinstatement, similar to the treatment given to 30 other workers retained by the new contractor.
3. The worker is entitled to financial benefits from the date of ICC exoneration for the period he was unfairly excluded from employment.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The termination was necessitated by exceptional circumstances, as ESIC Hospital, Okhla, had requested that the worker be removed pending the inquiry into the sexual harassment allegations.
2. The worker’s termination was not wrongful but procedural, as the contract with M/s Rudra Enterprises ended on June 30, 2024.
3. ICC exoneration alone did not mandate reinstatement, as M/s Rudra Enterprises no longer had a contractual relationship with ESIC Hospital or UPRNNL.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Prohibits employers from altering service conditions of employees or terminating employment during the pendency of industrial disputes without prior approval from the authority.
   • In this case, the court found that the termination did not comply with the stipulated conditions under Section 33.
2. Role of ICC Proceedings: The ICC’s clean chit restored the worker’s right to employment, particularly as no additional complaints or evidence warranted further action.
   • ICC’s recommendations to maintain workplace dignity also bolstered the worker’s claim for reinstatement.

Precedent Analysis

While no explicit precedents were cited in this judgment, the court’s reasoning heavily relied on the principles of industrial law requiring strict compliance with Section 33 during disputes.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The court considered its prior orders, which provided interim protection to 31 workers, including the petitioner, directing the respondents to scrupulously follow Section 33.
2. It noted that the ICC exoneration effectively nullified the reason for the worker’s termination.
3. Acknowledging the peculiar circumstances, the court accepted the assurance by ESIC Hospital to direct the new contractor to reinstate the worker.
4. The court emphasized that reinstatement under protection orders does not shield workers from future disciplinary actions for subsequent misconduct.

Conclusion

The court disposed of the petition after securing the assurance of reinstatement. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to seek financial compensation for the period of exclusion post-ICC exoneration. The judgment clarified that the worker’s reinstatement under the interim protection order does not prevent the employer from taking lawful action in the future for any proven misconduct.

Implications

1. This judgment underscores the mandatory compliance with interim protection orders issued under industrial law.
2. It reinforces the principle that ICC exoneration can significantly restore an employee’s workplace rights.
3. Employers and contractors must ensure adherence to legal procedures during disputes to avoid contempt proceedings.
4. The case highlights the nuanced challenges in balancing workplace dignity and employee rights in cases involving harassment allegations.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Stays ₹16.22 Lakh Recovery Order and Arbitrator’s Decision Against Paddy Procurement In-charge: “Opportunity to Be Heard Is a Fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, Appeal Rights Under Clause 14 Must Be Honored”