(1) VIDE this order, we shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 5432, 6744, 6745, 6747, 674and, 6991, 7039, 7111, 7112, 7238, 7239, 7257, 7261, 7265, 7266, 7270, 7272, 7288 and 7305/2007. The facts have been takefn from C. W. P. No. 5432/2007 titled as Sat Pal Singh v. Piccadily agro Industries Limited, Bhadson, District karnal and Others.
(2) THE case of the workman in nutshell is that he was working as Mazdoor with respondent No. 1 since crushing season of 1994-95. The petitioner had worked for 7 seasons without any break and has completed 240 days in the respondent mill. In the crushing season 2001-02, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1 did not allow him to join his duty ignoring his seniority. The petitioner and other workmen contacted the respondent-mill on number of occasions and requested them to allow to join their duty but the respondent-mill put off the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The petitioner aggrieved by the illegal act of respondent filed a demand notice on July 27, 2002 and the matter was referred to Labour Court for adjudication under section 19 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide reference dated August 17, 2004. During the pendency Of the above mentioned proceedings before the Labour Court, a settlement was arrived at, between the petitioner and respondent-mill and it was agreed upon between the parties that mill will prepare the seniority list of the workmen and would allow the petitioner to work in the immediate crushing season according to the seniority and award in this regard dated October 14, 2005 was passed by Labour Court/lok adalat.
(3) THE petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent mill for immediate crushing season but again the respondent refused to take the petitioner workman back on the work and did not allow him to join the respondent-mill. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 6 in the list prepared by the respondent. The petitioner along with others approached the labour and Settling (sic Settlement) Officer, respondent No. 3 for implementation of the award. The Labour Inspector passed an order dated March 13, 2006 vide which it has been illegally held that award dated October 14, 2005 has been complied with. That order dated march 13,2006 has been challenged in the writ petition. The order of the Labour Inspector respondent No. 3 defeats the very purpose of settlement arrived at between the respondent-milt and petitioner- workman and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the authority Morinda Co op. Sugan Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Others AIR 1996 SC 332 : (1995) 5 SCC 653 : 1996-I-LLJ-870.
(4) A prayer has been made for implementation of the award after quashing the impugned order dated March 13, 2006 passed by respondent No. 3 and further prayer has been made for issuance of directions to respondent no. 1 to take back the present petitioner on work in the immediate crushing season and to pay full back wages with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of start of crushing season in the year 2001-02 till respondent No. 1 allow the petitioner to join his duty.
(5) NOTICE of the petition was given to respondent No. 1, who has filed reply taking preliminary objections that writ petition is misconceived the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. On merits it is pleaded that the answering respondent has prepared the seniority list of the workmen and has complied with the order dated October 14, 2005. The present petition is mere in the nature of execution petition for implementation of award Annexure, P-4. and, as such the award of the Labour Court/lok Adalat cannot be executed by writ Court.
(6) WE have heard both the sides and have gone through the record of the case.
(7) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was working with the respondent-mill. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 1 is a seasonal industry. The petitioner and Others raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice dated July 27, 2002 Annexure P-2 nd that dispute ultimately culminated into a settlement on october 14, 2005 and award dated October 14, 2005 Annexure P-4 was passed on the basis of statements made by both the parties. It was observed that the management has agreed to maintain the seniority list of the workmen from the date of appointment as per letter-cum-joining report dated December 6, 2000. The reference was disposed of in that term. It is also not disputed that even after passing of the said award Annexure P-4, the petitioner and others have not been allowed to join the duties. That grievance was referred to the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Karnal, who vide order dated March 13, 2006 Annexure P-7 has held that the award dated October 14,2005 has been complied with as seniority list has been prepared.
(8) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner of the present case and other workmen have not been taken into service in the crushing season after October 14, 2005. The stand of respondent No. 1 is that vide award Annexure P-4 respondent No. 1 was only directed to prepare the seniority list. Respondent No. 1 has prepared the seniority list. The respondent in the beginning of the season have posted letters to the petitioner but he has not joined. The mill is a seasonal mill and reinstatement with full back wages cannot be allowed in view of the authority Anil Bapurao kanaso v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ltd. and Another AIR 1997 SC2698: (1997) 10 scc 599 : 1998-I-LLJ-343. The objection has been taken that award Annexure P-4 cannot be ordered to be implemented in a writ jurisdiction. Reference has been made in respect of Annexure Rl/2 vide which publication has been made in Dainik Bhaskar for directing the seasonal workers to join their duty in the season 2001-02.
(9) SO far as the objection taken by respondent No. 1 that execution cannot be ordered by the Writ Court, is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The petitioner and other workmen had approached the Labour department who has held that award has been complied with. The question arises, whether the award dated October 14, 2005 Annexure P-4 has been duly complied with or not. It was not the intention of the parties to mere prepare the seniority list. The seniority list cannot be said to be paper transaction alone. The very purpose of preparing the seniority list is to allow the workmen to join the crushing season in accordance with their seniority. The publication Annexure Rl/2 relates to the season 2001-02.
(10) THERE are two prayers made by the petitioner, firstly seeking full back wages along with interest @ 18% per annum starting from crushing season in the year 2001-02 till the petitioner and others are allowed to join the duty and secondly implementation of the award.
(11) WE are of the considered view that in view of the authority Morinda Co op. Sugan mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Others (supra)case relied upon by the petitioner and in view of the authority Anil Bapurao Kanaso v. Krishna sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Another (supra) relied upon by respondent No. 1 the reinstatement of the petitioner from the year 2001-02 cannot be allowed as respondent No. 1 is a seasonal factory. Moreover, the award was ultimately passed on October 14, 2005 on the statement of both the sides and both the parties are bound by term of the award dated October 14,2005. The intention of award dated October 14,2005 cannot be said to be merely to prepare the seniority list. The purpose of maintaining the seniority list to allow the persons mentioned in the seniority list to work according to the seniority and exigency of the work. Respondent no. 1 has relied upon the authority Anil bapurao Kanaso v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar karkhana Ltd. and Another (supra ). In this authority, it has been observed as under 1998-I-LLJ-343 at p. 344: "3. . . . . . However, this Court has directed that the respondent; management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who ate already working, the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen, It would be incumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above. "
(12) THESE observations have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondent-management. So, in these circumstances, order dated March 13, 2006 annexure P-6 stands quashed and directions are issued to responde
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nt No. 1 management that it shall engage the workers when the season starts in the succeeding year in the order of seniority Annexure Rl/1 prepared by it. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working, the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workman. The management before 15 days of the season, shall submit list to the Trade Union of the petitioner and shall place the list on the notice board and shall allow the workers to go through the list and shall employ the workers in accordance with seniority as per list Annexure rl/1 complying the direction given by the apex Court in the authority Anil Bapurao kanaso v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ltd. and Another (supra ). (13) SO far as the relief for the grant of back wages etc. , is concerned, the same stands declined. A copy of the order be placed on all the concerned writ petitions mentioned above.