JACKSON CHOWKIDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by three workmen (Chowkidars) working with the Garrison Engineer (North) M.E.S., Air Force Palam, Delhi Cantt raising an issue of great public importance regarding suspension of industrial adjudication in the Central Government Labour Court for the last nine months. The reason for suspension is that for about a year no Presiding Officer is appointed to the said court by Union of India. Admittedly, there are about 1600 cases pending in the said court. The petitioners filed a petition in the said court for over-time wages on 3-7-1978. The evidence was recorded and the arguments were completed on 28-10-1981 and the orders were reserved by the Presiding Officer but thereafter for want of the Presiding Officer the final order could not be pronounced.

(2.) The Labour Court-cum-Tribunal is especially established for giving quick relief to the workers. The Socialist Republic of ours should not allow to create an impression in the working classes that the Directive Principles to protect the workers interest are not seriously acted upon. Pendency of 1600 cases might heighten such an impression. It took more than three years for the recording of the evidence and completion of the arguments in the present case. The additional difficulties created by the absence of a Presiding Officer are neatly stated in the petition in the following words :

(3.) The effort to appoint a retired High Court Judge is quite laudable as it will provide added prestige to industrial adjudication in Delhi. However it cannot be countenanced that administration of justice in this vital area should come to stand still for about a year. Non-filling of vacancies in courts for a long period is one of the reasons for the mounting arrears in our Principles of the Constitution. The object of this Directive is that nobody should be denied access to courts. Once a Labour Court/Tribunal is established in accordance with the statutory provisions it is the statutory duty of the Government not to keep it without a Presiding Officer. To do so will also mean denial of access to courts. In the circumstances of the present case the petitioners are entitled to the mandamus sought for by thein. The counsel for the respondents stated at the Bar that before the end of the year the Presiding Officer will be appointed.