IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

LEGAL AID CASE AIDED BY DELHI HIGH COURT

LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

INDEX
S. No. Particulars Pages
1. Urgent Application
2. Notice of Motion
3. Memo of Parties
4. Court Fee
5. Synopsis, List of Dates & Events
6. Writ Petition under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India along
with supporting affidavit
7. ANNEXURE – P1
True copy of order dated 17.05.2017
by Ld. Additional Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi
8. ANNEXURE – P2 (Colly)
Letter dated 03.07.2017 and letter
dated 27.10.2017 by the Respondent
Bank
9. ANNEXURE – P3
True Copy of order of dismissal of the
Petitioner by the Respondent Bank
10. ANNEXURE – P4
True copy of representation field by
the Petitioner before the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner
11. ANNEXURE – P5
True copy of written statement filed
by Respondent Bank
12. ANNEXURE – P6
True copy of Rejoinder filed by the
Petitioner
13. ANNEXURE – P7
True copy of letter dated 05.05.2017
sent by Petitioner to the Respondent
Bank
14. ANNEXURE – P8
True copy of order dated 18.09.2017
by the Ld. Additional Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) New Delhi
15. C.M. No. _____ /2018
Application for exemption from filing
original/legible/certified/true typed
copy of the documents along with
supporting affidavit
16. Vakalatnama

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block – I,
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
Tel: +91 98991 40169
Email: [email protected]
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

 Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

To
The Dy. Registrar
Delhi High Court
New Delhi

Sub : URGENT APPLICATION

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying application

as an urgent one in accordance with the High Court
Rules and orders. The grounds of urgency are

“AS PER PRAYER CLAUSE”

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block - I
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

Kindly take notice that the accompanying petition will

be listed before the Hon’ble Court on _________ at

10.30AM in the Forenoon or so soon thereafter as may

be convenient to the Hon’ble Court.

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block - I
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL

D/o Sh. Daya Shanker Aggarwal,
R/o Plot No.43, Flat No.S-25,
Sector-9, Venus Apartments,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Through its Chairman
Head Office at:
7, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi …RESPONDENT

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block - I
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

COURT FEE

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

SYNOPSIS
The present Petition seeking issuance of Certiorari

and/or any appropriate writ and the same is being

preferred by the Petition against the order dated 17-

05.2017 bearing No. ALC-III/45(04)2017 by Ld.

Additional Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New

Delhi wherein the Ld. Commissioner was pleased to

disposed of the case of the Petitioner seeking redressal

against non-release of pension by the Respondent herein.

The case of the Petitioner herein is that without ever

going into the merits of the matter, the case of the

Petitioner was dismissed. Further by way of this present

writ petition, the Petitioner herein further seeks issuance

of Certiorari and/or any appropriate writ against the

letter dated 03.07.2017 and letter dated 27.10.2017

wherein which the Respondent had rejected the claim of

the Petitioner for nonpayment of arrears of subsistence

allowance.

It is submitted that the said rejected by the Respondent

in a summarily manner on the pretext that the same is

hit by delay and laches and only after passing of 21-25

years, the Petitioner is now seeking her claim towards

subsistence allowances along with interest thereof is

arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and against the due process

of law. It is against such acts of arbitrariness and

illegality, the Petitioner here is constrained to approach

this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate remedy.

Hence the present writ petition before this Hon’ble High

Court.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Date Events

15.09.78 Petitioner-workman was appointed as Clerk-

Cum-Cashier with the Respondent

April, Petitioner was permanently posted to Branch

1990
Office Parliament Street, New Delhi.

November, Mr. P.S. Bedi (then Branch Manager at

1990
Kallimpur Branch, Meerut) under whom
Petitioner had earlier worked, approached
Petitioner and requested Petitioner to give him
some deposits to enable him to fulfill the
target of deposits in his branch. Petitioner
acceded to the request of Mr. P.S. Bedi and
gave him total sum of Rs.60,000/-, for
opening of FDR in the name of Petitioner.

03.02.91 Petitioner kept on requesting Mr. P.S. Bedi for

the FDR, and it was only on 03.02.1991 that
Mr. P.S. Bedi gave the FDR bearing no.20/91
dt.02.02.1991 for an amount of Rs.60,000/-.

04.02.91 Petitioner requested for loan on the FDR.

 Respondent sanctioned loan of Rs.60,000/-.
This means that the Respondent had checked
the veracity of the said FDR.

28.01.92 Respondent bank stated to the Petitioner that

only a sum of Rs.6,000/- has been deposited
in Kalli Rampur Branch against the FDR in
question as against Rs.60,000/- as mentioned
in the FDR. The Petitioner to show her bona-
fides, when called upon by the Respondent to
pay back the loan amount taken on the said
FDR alongwith interest, paid back the loan
amount with interest.

30.01.92 Petitioner was placed under suspension

31.01.92
without assigning any ground/reason

07.02.94 After delay of more than 2 years, charge sheet

30.06.94
was issued by Respondent and corrigendum

23.02.94 Petitioner submitted reply denying all the

allegations leveled against her and asked for
26.02.94
documents

30.06.94 Mr. R.M.C. Vaishya, Sr. Manager appointed

as Enquiry Officer

27.10.94 Mr. D.D. Sharma, Sr. Manager (Personnel)

appointed as new Enquiry Officer

14.03.95 Enquiry Officer submitted his report

08/11 Disciplinary Authority issued order of

.08.95
dismissal w.e.f. 11.08.95 without giving any
 reasons

30.09.97 Ministry of Labour referred the dispute

between the parties to the Tribunal for
adjudication

10.08.11 Hon’ble Tribunal passed an award thereby

setting aside the dismissal order of Petitioner
and directed reinstatement with full back
wages and all other consequential benefits
such as seniority, promotion etc.

17.04.13 Respondent impugned the said award by way

of writ petition being W.P. (C) No.9083 of 2011
before this Hon’ble Court on the ground that
after setting aside the report of domestic
enquiry, Ld. Tribunal had not provided the
opportunity to respondent-bank to prove the
misconduct of employee before the tribunal by
leading further evidence on merits before it.
This Hon’ble Court was pleased to set aside
the award dt.10.08.2011 and remanded the
matter back to the Hon’ble Tribunal with
direction to pass a fresh award on the basis of
the further evidence that it records.”
Evidence was led by parties before the Hon’ble
Tribunal.

30.12.13 Hon’ble Tribunal passed an award thereby

dismissing the claim of the Petitioner, which
award was received by Petitioner.

2014 Petitioner impugned the Award of the Ld.

Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.
(C) No. 4852 of 2014
21.12.16 Petitioner approached the office of Deputy
Chief Labour Commissioner for non-release of
pension and raised an industrial dispute in
this regard.

06.02.17 Respondent filed their written statement before

the Dy. Chief Labour commissioner

28.03.17 Rejoinder is filed by the Petitioner to the

written statement filed by the respondent.

05.05.17 Petition in the meanwhile had sent a letter

dated 05.05.2017 to Assistant manager, PNB
seeking arrears towards subsistence
allowance, arrears of salary revision with upto
date interest.

17.05.17 Vide its order dated 17.05.2017 the Ld. Dy.

Chief Labour Commissioner was pleased to
dismiss the claim of the petitioner in view of
the writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.
4852/2014 and in a summarily manner
dismissed the claim of the Petitioner herein.

03.07.17 Reply is sent by the Respondent to the letter

dated 05.05.2017 of the Petitioner regarding
non-payment of arrear of subsistence
allowance during 01.011.1992 to 11.08.1995
and opined that since the same was never
raised earlier, thus such demand is not
tenable now.
07.09.17 Petitioner herein again sent a representation to
the Ld. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner

18.09.17 The Office of Ld. Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner again rejected the
representation of Petitioner stating that no
action is required to be taken as the matter is
pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

18.08.17 Petitioner herein again sent a representation to

the General Manager, Bikaji Cama Place, PNB
seeking the arrears.

27.10.17 Respondent bank in its reply dated 27.10.2017

had merely reiterated the content of its letter
dated 03.07.2017

Hence the present Writ Petition before this

Hon’ble Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

 LEGAL AID CASE AIDED BY DELHI HIGH COURT
LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

WRIT PETITION ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING
ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT / ORDER /
DIRECTION FOR QUASHING OF ORDER
PASSED BY LD. DY CHIEF LABOUR
COMMISSIONER DATED 17.05.2017 AND
LETTER DATED 03.07.2017 & 27.10.2017
BY THE RESPONDENT BANK

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present writ petition is being filed against

the order dated 17.05.2017 bearing No. ALC-

III/45(04)2017 by Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi wherein the Ld.

Commissioner was pleased to disposed of the case

of the Petitioner seeking redressal against non-

release of pension by the Respondent herein.

Further by way of this present writ petition, the

Petitioner herein further seeks issuance of

Certiorari and/or any appropriate writ against the

letter dated 03.07.2017 and letter dated 27.10.2017

wherein which the Respondent had rejected the

claim of the Petitioner for nonpayment of arrears of

 subsistence allowance. True copy of order dated

17.05.2017 by Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi is annexed as

Annexure – P1 and Letter dated 03.07.2017 and

letter dated 27.10.2017 by the Respondent Bank is

annexed as Annexure – P2 (Colly).

2. That the case of the Petitioner herein is that without

ever going into the merits of the matter, the case of

the Petitioner was dismissed by the Ld. Additional

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi and

the Respondent Bank.

3. That the facts relevant for adjudication of the

present case are as under.

I. That the Petitioner-workman was appointed as

Clerk-Cum-Cashier with the Respondent-bank

on 15.09.1978 and rendered service for

continuous 13 years without any blame or

stigma upon her.

II. That in April, 1990 Petitioner was permanently

posted to Branch Office Parliament Street, New

Delhi.
III. That sometime in November, 1990 there

happened an alleged fraud regarding inflation

of FDR involving the Petitioner and one Mr.

P.S. Bedi and for the same the Petitioner was

placed under suspension from 30.01.1992 by

the Respondent/management without as

assigning any ground/reason for the same. On

31.01.1992 Respondent gave another

suspension order to fill up gaps in the previous

suspension order stating that the Petitioner is

placed under suspension in connection with

the alleged inflation of FDR No.20 of 91 A/c

No.238 of Branch Office Kalli Rampur, Meerut,

U.P.

IV. That it is pertinent to mention that only after a

delay of more than 2 years, charge sheet

dt.07.02.1994 was issued by Respondent with

the charge upon the Petitioner that; “You

committed a fraud by mis-using your position

as a Staff Member which is an act prejudicial to

bank’s interest which is a mis-conduct in terms

of para 19.5(j)”. It is stated that during such

time of suspension, the Petitioner was not

provided with the Respondent which is illegal

and against the sent principals of law. That the

 Petitioner herein was kept on suspension on

30.01.1992 and the suspension period was

from 30.01.1992 to 11.08.1995.

V. That the Petitioner after being charge sheeted

asked the Respondent to provide various

documents which were never provided by the

Respondent. on 23.02.1994 and 26.02.1994,

Petitioner submitted her reply to the

Respondent, denying all the allegations leveled

against her and asked for documents.

VI. That instead of supplying the necessary

documents, the Respondent proceeded to

appointed Mr. R.M.C. Vaishya, Sr. Manager

was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct

departmental enquiry against the Petitioner.

Subsequently, the Respondent on 27.10.1994

appointed Mr. D.D. Sharma, Sr. Manager

(Personnel) as new Enquiry Officer without

giving any reason for such change

VII. That the inquiry proceedings were conducted

and on 14.03.1995 Enquiry Officer submitted

his report, which is not based on any evidence

and was perverse, biased and against the

principles of natural justice. On the basis of

 the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority

issued a Show Cause Notice dt.01.07.1995 to

the Petitioner proposing punishment of

dismissal and calling the Petitioner to appear

before the Disciplinary Authority. On

28.07.1995 Petitioner submitted her

representation stating the illegal acts of the

Enquiry Officer, his non-Application of mind

etc. The Disciplinary Authority issued order

dated 08/11.081995 of dismissal of Petitioner

w.e.f. 11.08.95 without giving any reasons.

True Copy of order of dismissal of the

Petitioner by the Respondent Bank is annexed

as Annexure – P3.

VIII. That on 19.09.1995, Petitioner preferred an

Appeal to the Appellate Authority On

12.03.1996, the Appellate Authority rejected

the appeal of the Petitioner vide a Non-

speaking order whereby, the Appellate

Authority merely stated that “charges leveled

against Smt. Aggarwal are quite grave in

nature and proved beyond doubt.”

IX. The Petitioner preferred an Industrial Dispute

Claim to the Regional Labour Commissioner

 (Central) on 19.07.1996, where conciliation

failed between the parties and the Assistant

Labour Commissioner / Conciliation Officer

submitted its report dt.19.03.1997 for failure

of conciliation. Thereafter, the Ministry of

Labour vide its letter dt.30.09.1997 referred

the dispute between the parties to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication.

X. Thereafter petitioner had filed her statement of

claim dated 11.11.1997 before the Ld.

Tribunal and he respondent-bank filed their

written statement. The Petitioner filed

replication to this Written Statement.

XI. That the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal vide order dt.26.02.1998 framed two

issues viz:

1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted

against the Workmen is fair & proper.

2. As per the terms of reference?

XII. That thereafter, evidence was led by the parties

and the Tribunal by an award dt.10.08.2011

set aside the dismissal order of Petitioner and

 directed the reinstatement with full back

wages and all other consequential benefits.

XIII. That the said award was impugned by the

Respondent by way of writ petition being W.P.

(C) No.9083 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court

on the ground that after setting aside the

report of domestic enquiry, Ld. Tribunal had

not provided the opportunity to respondent-

bank to prove the misconduct of employee

before the tribunal by leading further evidence

on merits before it vide order dt.17.04.2013 set

aside the award dt.10.08.2011 and remanded

the matter back to the Hon’ble Tribunal.

XIV. That thereafter evidence was led by parties

before the Hon’ble Tribunal on the point of

fairness of domestic inquiry and both the

parties lead their respective evidence. That

thereafter evidence was closed by both parties

before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

XV. That thereafter written submissions on merits

of case on the basis of evidence led by the

parties before the Hon’ble Tribunal was filed by

the parties, and also written submissions in

 respect of fairness of domestic enquiry, were

also filed.

XVI. That the Hon’ble Tribunal passed the award

dated 30.12.2013, thereby holding that the

domestic enquiry was just, fair and proper and

that even on the basis of evidence adduced

before the Tribunal, the dismissal of Petitioner

was correct and punishment was

commensurate with the misconduct of the

Petitioner. The Ld. Labour Tribunal erred in

law as well on facts and in total oblivion of the

well settled law that onus to prove the

allegation about fraud committed by Petitioner

rests upon the respondent bank, Ld. Tribunal

by ignoring material and evidence on record

and taking into account evidence in the

enquiry proceedings travelled beyond the

scope of its jurisdiction and only on mere

suspicion in the absence of any evidence,

proceeded to hold against the petitioner.

XVII. That hence, being aggrieved by the award

dt.30.12.2013 the Petitioner herein had filed a

writ petition before this Hon’ble High Court

and the same was registered as W.P. (C) No.

 4852 od 2014. That in the said writ petition,

notice was issued and Respondent had

appeared and filed their counter affidavit to the

writ petition of the Petitioner. That the said

writ petition is part-heard and is pending final

disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.

XVIII. That during the pendency of the aforesaid writ

petition, the Petitioner had attained the age of

superannuation on 30.12.2012 and the

Respondent herein had not released the

pension and other retiral benefits to the

Petitioner. That against such illegal and

arbitrary acts of the Respondent, the Petitioner

approached the office of Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner for non-release of pension and

raised an industrial dispute in this regard on

21.12.2016. True copy of representation field

by the Petitioner before the Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner is annexed as Annexure

– P4.

XIX. That notice of the said representation was

issued to the Respondent who appeared and

filed their written statement on 06.02.2017

before the Ld. Deputy Chief Labour

 Commissioner, (Central), New Delhi. True copy

of written statement filed by Respondent Bank

is annexed as Annexure – P5.

XX. That the Petitioner filed its Rejoinder to the

written statement filed by the Respondent

Bank on 28.03.2017 and further wrote a letter

to the Ld. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), New Delhi that the averments made

therein be considered by the aforementioned

authority. True copy of Rejoinder filed by the

Petitioner is annexed as Annexure – P6.

XXI. That during such pendency of the

aforementioned industrial dispute regarding

non-release of pension and other retiral

benefits of the Petitioner, in a parallel

proceeding, the Petition had sent a letter dated

05.05.2017 to Assistant Manager, PNB seeking

arrears towards subsistence allowance during

suspension, arrears of salary revision with up

to date interest. It is pertinent to mention the

Clause 5 of Settlement dated 08.09.1983

which reads as follows:-

Clause 5 of Settlement dated 08.09.1983

In partial modification of para-557 of the

Sastry Award and para-17.14 of the Desai

Award following provisions shall apply in

regards to payment of subsistence allowance to

workmen under suspension:-

Where the investigation is not entrusted to or

taken up by an outside agency (i.e.,

police/CBI) subsistence allowance will be

payable at the following rates:-

i. For the first 3 months 1/3rd of the pay

allowance which the workman would

have got but for the suspension,

ii. Thereafter ½ of the pay allowance,

iii. After one year full pay and allowance if

the enquiry is not delayed for reasons

attributable to the concerned workmen or

any of his representative where the

investigation is done by outside agency

and the said agency has come to the

conclusion not to prosecute the

employee, full pay and allowance will be

payable after 6 months from the date of

receipt of record of such agency, or one

year after the suspension whichever is

 later and in the event the enquiry is

delayed for reason attributable to the

workmen or any of his representative.

Thus in light of the same, Petitioner remained

suspended from 03.01.1992 to 11.08.1995

which is more than a year, thus Petitioner

claimed in her letter that she is entitled to full

amount after one year as per the service rules

and bipartite settlement. True copy of letter

dated 05.05.2017 sent by Petitioner is annexed

as Annexure – P7.

XXII. That in the meanwhile, vide its order dated

17.05.2017 the Ld. Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the

claim of the petitioner for non-payment of

pension and other allied benefits in view of the

writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4852/2014

and in a summarily manner dismissed the

claim of the Petitioner herein.

XXIII. That a reply dated 03.07.2017 is sent by the

Respondent to the letter dated 05.05.2017 of

the Petitioner regarding non-payment of arrear

of subsistence allowance during 01.011.1992

to 11.08.1995 and opined that since the same

 was never raised earlier, thus such demand is

not tenable now.

XXIV. That the Petitioner herein had again sent a

representation to the Ld. Chief Labour

Commissioner on 07.09.2017 seeking his kind

indulgence for securing the release of non-

payment of pension and other retrial dues of

the Petitioner.

XXV. That vide its order dated 18.09.2017, the

Office of Ld. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner,

(Central), New Delhi again rejected the

representation of Petitioner stating that no

action is required to be taken as the matter is

pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Thus, the Petitioner was left remediless on

account of such dismissal of the claim of the

Petitioner before the Ld. Dy. Chief Labour

Commissioner, (Central), New Delhi. True copy

of order dated 18.09.2017 is annexed as

Annexure – P8.

XXVI. That the Petitioner herein again sent a

representation to the General Manager, Bikaji

Cama Place, PNB seeking the arrears, however,

the Respondent Bank vides its reply dated

 27.10.2017 again rejected the claim of the

Petitioner and merely reiterated the contents of

is letter dated 03.07.2017. The Petitioner had

also requested the Respondent Bank for the

arrears as well as gratuity and PF, however, in

contrast, the Respondent’s Bank have claimed

that they have credited the PF, Gratuity as well

as other arrears in the Petitioner’s Housing

loan account. That the Respondent bank,

however, time and again failed to produce a

any documentary proof of the same.

XXVII. That in the backdrop of the aforementioned

facts and circumstances, the Petitioner feeling

aggrieved is filing the present writ petition

seeking issuance of Certiorari and/or any

appropriate writ and the same is being

preferred by the Petition against the order

dated 17.05.2017 bearing No. ALC-

III/45(04)2017 by Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi and further

seeks issuance of Certiorari and/or any

appropriate writ against the letter dated

03.07.2017 and letter dated 27.10.2017

wherein which the Respondent had rejected

 the claim of the Petitioner for nonpayment of

arrears of subsistence allowance.

4. Hence, being aggrieved the present writ petition has

been filed on the grounds which are being taken

without prejudice to one another:

GROUNDS

A. FOR THAT the impugned order dated 17.05.2017

and letter dated 03.07.2017 and 27.10.2017 are

perverse besides being against the facts, evidence

on record and settled law, and thus the same are

liable to be set aside.

B. FOR THAT the Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi failed to

appreciate the facts and the law and exceeded its

jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Ld. Additional

Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi

without going into the merits of the case failed to

apply its quasi-judicial mind and delivered the said

impugned order 17.05.2017.

C. FOR THAT the Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi fell in grave error

while not considering the fact that the Hon’ble High

Court was only seized with the dispute regarding

the illegal and unjustified termination and ensuing

punishment accorded by the Respondent to the

Petitioner. The issue regarding non-payment of

pension and other retrial benefits was not raised

before the Hon’ble High Court and thus the Ld.

Additional Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

New Delhi fell in error in not adjudicating the claim

of the Petitioner in respect of non-release of

pension, PF, gratuity and other benefits of the

Petitioner.

D. FOR THAT the Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central) New Delhi on a summarily

basis rejected the claim of the Petitioner without

going into the merits of Petitioner’s case. Thus, the

Ld. Additional Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

New Delhi failed to exercise the jurisdiction so

vested with itself of adjudication a claim filed by the

Petitioner.
E. FOR THAT Ld. Additional Chief Labour

Commissioner, (Central), New Delhi failed to

considered that the law in regards to release of PF

and gratuity and other retiral benefits is well settled

as the Hon’ble Apex Court has held time and again

that retiral benefits like PF, Gratuity etc. is not a

bounty to be given by the employer and thus the

same cannot be withheld by the employer expect by

due process of law.

F. FOR THAT the Respondent Bank has illegally and

unjustifiable have denied claim of the Petitioner in

respect of payment of subsistence allowances

during the period of 30.01.1992 to 11.08.1995, for

which the Petitioner had remained under

suspension. It is contented that the provisions of

the Sastry Award and the Desai Award which cover

payment of Subsistence Allowances during

suspension are very clear in this context and need

no further interpretation or deliberation in this

regards. It is also a matter of record that during the

Suspension period from 30.01.1992 to 11.08.1995,

no Subsistence Allowance was paid to the Petitioner

by the Respondent. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner

 cannot be denied only on the basis of delay and

laches as the said demand is being raised by the

Petitioner after a lapse of 21-25 years.

G. FOR THAT the Respondent Bank cannot without

the backing of any rules, regulations or statutory

law, summarily deny the rightful claims of the

Petitioner solely on the basis of inordinate delay

and/or the said claims were never demanded earlier

by the Petitioner.

H. FOR THAT the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble

Court to add, amend or alter any other grounds at

the time of arguments in support of her case.

5. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar

Writ or Petition before this Hon’ble Court or any

other Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner had

filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4852/2014

wherein which the Petitioner had impugned the

Award dated 30.12.2013 challenging the findings of

Ld. Labour Court which held the domestic inquiry

to be fair and in consonance of principal of natural

 justice and further opined that the

Petitioner/workman was not entitled to any relief.

6. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain

the present writ petition and pass appropriate

orders.

7. That the annexures filed by the Petitioner are true

copies and were part of record before the Hon’ble

Tribunal.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances and submissions

made above, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction

quashing the order dated 17.05.2017 passed

by Ld. Additional Chief Labour Commissioner,

(Central), New Delhi and letter dated

03.07.2017 and 27.10.2017 sent by

Respondent Bank,
 (ii) Pass such other further orders or directions as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in

the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER

SHALL FOREVER PRAY

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block - I
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
Mob. +91 9899140153
Email: [email protected]

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sneh Aggarwal aged about ___ Years, W/o Sh.

Daya Shanker Aggarwal, R/o Plot No.43, Flat No.S-25,

Sector-9, Venus Apartments, Rohini, Delhi-110085 do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner and fully conversant with

the facts and circumstances of the case and as such

competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying writ petition

has been drafted by my counsel under my

instructions and the contents of the same have been

read over and explained to me in vernacular and the

same are true and correct to my knowledge and

belief.

3. That I say that no other Civil Writ Petition has been

filed before any other Court including the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India seeking the same relief as

has been prayed for in the present Civil Writ

Petition.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this ___ of August, 2018 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief and no part of it is incorrect.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

C.M. No. of 2018

IN

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING

LEGIBLE, TYPED AND CERTIFIED COPIES

OF CERTAIN ANNEXURES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying writ

petition and the contents of the same may be read

herein as part and parcel of the present application

and the same are not being repeated herein for the

sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition.

2. That the Petitioner due to urgency of the matter has

filed the accompanying writ petition with certain

 annexures, without typed, legible and certified

copies.

3. That the Petitioner shall file typed, legible and

certified copies of annexures as and when directed

by this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the Petitioner may be exempted from filing

typed, legible and certified copies of annexures.

5. That the application is made bonafide and in the

interest of justice. Further no prejudice would be

caused to the Petitioner if the same is allowed by

this Hon’ble High Court.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances and submissions

made above, it is most respectfully prayed that in the

interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) Exempt the Petitioner from filing legible, typed

and certified copies of certain annexures;

(ii) Pass such other further orders or directions as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper:

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER

SHALL FOREVER PRAY

PETITIONER

Through

SARFARAZ KHAN
Counsel for Petitioner
Ch. No. 214, Block - I
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003
Mob. +91 9899140153
Email: [email protected]

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

C.M. No. of 2018

IN

W.P. (C) No. OF 2018

In The Matter Of:

SMT. SNEH AGGARWAL …PETITIONER

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I Sneh Aggarwal aged about ___ Years, W/o Sh.

Daya Shanker Aggarwal, R/o Plot No.43, Flat No. S-25,

Sector-9, Venus Apartments, Rohini, Delhi-110085 do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner and fully conversant with

the facts and circumstances of the case and as such

competent to swear the present affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying Application

has been drafted by my counsel under my

instructions and the contents of the same have been

read over and explained to me in vernacular and the

same are true and correct to my knowledge and

belief.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this ___ of August, 2018 that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and belief and no part of it is incorrect.

DEPONENT