MINISTRY OF TEXTILE Vs. MURARI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment and order dated 21-9-2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4662 of 2002.

(3.) Background facts as projected by the respondent in the Writ Petition filed by him before the High Court are essentially as follows : Respondent was appointed as Chowkidar in Carpet Weaving Training Center, Bharatpur, Rajasthan on 24-8-1982. On 26-3-1985 respondent filed a representation for regularization. The same was rejected by order dated 20-5-1985 as he was over aged. According to the appellant, respondent stopped attending his duties in the office from 6-12-1987 and served a notice seeking reinstatement on 30-5-1988. On 3-6-1988 respondent filed L.A. No.201 of 1988 and 202 of 1988 for payment of difference in salary in the period from 24-8-1982 to 5-12-1987 and for overtime wages for the same period. On 5-7-1988 respondent filed a statement of claim before Conciliation Officer (Central, New Delhi. The efforts for conciliation proceedings failed and on 30-6-1989 failure report was submitted to Ministry for Labour. Respondent filed a writ petition in 1993. By order dated 23-8-1995 respondents writ petition was disposed of with a direction to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal notwithstanding the pendency of the matter filed by the respondent regarding minimum wages and overtime. The reference was rejected earlier by order dated 6-8-1990. The rejection was made on the ground that the matter was pending in Court. However, pursuant to the order of the High Court, reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). By award dated 9-2-2001 the Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages. It is to be noted that the matter was decided ex parte. In the year 2002, the scheme in which respondent claimed to have been appointed was abandoned by the Government of India. On 1-8-2002 the respondent filed writ petition No.4662 of 2002 for implementation of order of the Tribunal. On 17-10-2003 the appellant filed writ petition No.7707 of 2003 challenging the award. By order dated 21-9-2004, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed while the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. The LPA was filed in respect of the order in writ petition No.7707 of 2003. LPA 26 of 2005 which was filed against the order in Writ Petition No.4662 of 2002. LPA No.26 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn and the other LPA was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24-3-2005. The primary stand of the appellant is that the unit has already been closed and, therefore, the direction for reinstatement could not have been given. In addition if the termination was in November, 1987 as claimed by the respondent, the writ petition filed was highly belated and no direction could have been given to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the LPA.