TULSIRAM RAMDAS Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, which is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent no.1 to comply with the award dated June 15, 1992 rendered by the Central Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ITC) no.11 of 1984, by which respondent no.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with 60% backwages and pay Rs.1000.00 to Union by way of costs of Reference. Another prayer made by the petitioner is to quash and set aside order dated August 19, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.no.887 of 1996 by which prayer made by the petitioner to direct respondent no.1 to implement the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal is rejected. The petitioner has also claimed that respondent no.2 should be directed to prosecute respondent no.1 for refusing to comply with the award dated June 15, 1992 rendered by the Central Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ITC) no.11/84.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in the Western Railway in the year 1964 and posted at Nandurbar. He was initially transferred to Amalner on November 26, 1971. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Vyara by order dated May 24, 1972 as a Water Fitter Khalasi and directed to discharge duties under the Inspector of Works Vyara. The petitioner was not provided with duty pass so as to enable him to report for duty at Vyara from Amalner. Even then the petitioner presented himself for duty at Vyara, but he was not given any work on the ground that there was no vacancy of Water Fitter at Vyara. The petitioner was kept idle for a long period. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a chargesheet alleging that he had not carried out the instructions of his superior. Departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner and at the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated November 9, 1973. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority had quashed disciplinary proceedings and set aside the order terminating services of the petitioner. The petitioner was,however, served with order dated February 22, 1975 by which he was placed under suspension with retrospective effect from November 9, 1973. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was not paid any subsistence allowance. No wages whatsoever had been paid to the petitioner throughout the period after he was transferred to Vyara. After suspending the petitioner from service, a fresh chargesheet was issued to the petitioner and another departmental inquiry was instituted. The petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and at that time he had learnt that respondent no.1 had once again terminated his services. The petitioner, therefore, raised dispute which was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.The reference was registered as Reference (ITC) no.11/84. The petitioner submitted his statement of claim to which reply was filed by respondent no.1. After taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, Central Industrial Tribunal allowed the Reference partly. The operative part of the Tribunal's order reads as under :-

(3.) The Central Industrial Tribunal had made award on June 15, 1992, but copy of the award was sent to the representative of the petitioner only in the month of March, 1994 and along with the copy, notification for publication was not sent. The representative of the petitioner had, therefore, met the Registrar of Central Industrial Tribunal personally on April 14, 1994, who had given him a copy of notification dated June 30, 1992. A copy of the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-I to the petition. Thereafter, a notice dated October 4, 1994 was served on the respondent no.1 by registered post A.D. calling upon him to implement the award. A copy of notice dated October 4,1994 is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-II to the petition. The petitioner has also claimed in the petition that he personally met the Senior Personnel Officer of Western Railway at Bombay Central and requested him to reinstate the petitioner in service as per the order of the Tribunal, but the Senior Personel Officer refused to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal. The petitioner thereafter filed M.C.A.no. 271/95 in the High Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the said application is admitted and is pending for final disposal, but petitioner has hastened to add that the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not likely to be entertained in view of the judgment of Gujarat High Court which has taken the view that Labour Court is not a Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner made an application to respondent no.2 and also to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India as well as Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) at Ahmedabad on March 12, 1996 and requested them to prosecute respondent no.1 under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as respondent no.1 had committed breach of award of the Central Industrial Tribunal, dated June 15, 1992. A copy of application dated March 12, 1996 is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-III to the petition. It is an admitted position that respondent no.2 has not taken any action whatsoever to prosecute respondent no.1.