ISMAIL ALLAHRAKKHA Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicant original petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondent to take decision strictly in time bound schedule and thereby to give benefits of continuity in service and backwages to the applicant, making a grievance that in spite of the order passed by this Court dated 27-6-2005 in Special Civil Application No.5773 of 2005 directing the respondents to take a decision afresh considering the observations made by this Court in its order dated 12-3-2003 passed in Special Civil Application No.8594 of 1993 as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the same has not been complied with.

(2.) The facts leading to the present application are that the application raised the industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh for its adjudication which was treated as Reference LCJ No.588 of 1990. The Labour Court, Junagadh by its judgment and award dated 5-5-1993, partly allowed the said reference directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner, however, did not grant any relief with regard to backwages for the period from 1985 to 1991. The applicant/petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.8594 of 1993 before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in not granting the backwages for the aforesaid period and the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said Special Civil Application directing the petitioner to make a representation before the authority pointing out that according to him, he has already resumed his duty at Manavadar, but he was not allowed to work there and therefore, he was entitled to the backwages and while disposing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the learned Single Judge observed as under:

(3.) This Court by order dated 13-12-2006 issued notice upon the respondents and directed the respondents to personally remain present before this Court and were directed to show cause as to why an appropriate proceedings should not be initiated for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 27-6-2005. In spite of the notice served upon the respondents, nobody remained present on behalf of the respondents, but the Deputy Executive Engineer straightway wrote a letter to this Court informing the Court that the officers are not in a position to remain present before this Court. The Deputy Executive Engineer being a senior officer was supposed to know that when they have engaged a lawyer, they cannot straightway wrote a letter to the Court asking for time. Be that as it may, even the order passed by this Court was not complied with and no decision was taken by the respondents as directed by this Court in its order dated 27-6-2005.