Contractual employees’ services protected during industrial dispute pendency under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act.

The petitioners, employed as contractual nurses by the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) after an open recruitment process, alleged that the respondents willfully disobeyed court orders dated 29.06.2022 and 07.07.2022.

Those orders directed that the petitioners' services should not be disturbed during the pendency of an industrial dispute without complying with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Despite these directions and a notice from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the petitioners were allegedly terminated via telephonic communication and had their names removed from attendance registers in July 2022.

Subsequent to the filing of these contempt petitions, a consensual interim arrangement was reached between the parties in related writ proceedings in May 2026.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioners’ services during the pendency of a labor dispute constituted willful disobedience of the court’s status quo orders.

2. Whether the cessation of employment due to the expiry of a fixed-term contract requires compliance with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates that an employer must not alter service conditions or discharge workmen during the pendency of a dispute without prior permission or approval from the relevant authority.

The court referenced Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, which clarifies that dismissal without following statutory procedures under Section 33 is specialized violation.

The principle that employment ending by "efflux of time" in a fixed-term contract does not constitute an employer-initiated action under Section 33, citing BA Security Agents Employees Union v. Regional Labour Commissioner.

The petitioners argued that their continuous service and the employer's act of replacing them with outsourced staff via the GeM portal amounted to an illegal termination designed to circumvent the industrial dispute.

The respondents contended that the cessation was automatic and administrative in nature, falling within the executive domain of staffing patterns.

However, the court primarily focused on a recent development where, during connected proceedings (W.P.(C) 5411/2024), both parties agreed to a consensual arrangement.

The court determined that this interim settlement rendered an immediate ruling on the merits of the contempt allegations unnecessary.

The court directed the respondents to implement the induction of the petitioners within two weeks.

The holding clarifies that while the petitions are closed for now, the petitioners reserve the right to revive the contempt proceedings if the respondents fail to implement the agreed-upon arrangement or if the consensus falters.