HAMDARD (WAQF) LABORATORIES Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the reference order dated 27.12.2012 issued under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act whereby the State Government has referred a dispute to the labour court for adjudication. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workers went on a strike on 2nd June, 1983. Conciliation proceedings were initiated between the labour force and the management and, in these conciliation proceedings, the workers were directed to report for duty by 18th August, 1983. This date was subsequently extended till 1st September, 1983. The present respondents nos. 3 to 18 apparently did not report for duty, and eventually, the management took a decision terminating their service with effect from 09th September, 1983. These 18 workers along with some others raised an industrial dispute questioning the validity and legality of the order of their termination. The dispute was referred to the labour court and eventually an award was given holding that the order of termination was illegal. The labour court also directed reinstatement of these workers along with 50 per cent backwages w.e.f. 1st August, 1987. The employers, being aggrieved by the said award, filed writ petition no. 45663 of 1983, which was eventually dismissed by the court by a judgement dated 03rd November, 1995. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was filed, which was also dismissed by an order dated 26th April, 1996.

(2.) The award of the labour court was required to be enforced since the workers were not reinstated in service. Proceedings under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were initiated. The employers alleged that the wages for the month of June, 1996 was paid and the workers were suspended w.e.f. 1st July, 1996 for certain misconduct, and consequently, these workers only became entitled for subsistence allowance. The Deputy Labour Commissioner did not accept the contention of the petitioners and passed an order directing the employer to pay wages to the workers till July 1996. The employers, being aggrieved, by the said order filed writ petition no. 41691 of 1996. By another order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner directed the payment of bonus, which led the employers to file writ petition no. 35708 of 1996. The aforesaid two writ petitions were decided by the High Court by a judgement dated 09th April, 2003. The High Court directed payment of wages till 31st July, 1996 and also directed that the bonus was payable to the workers. The petitioners filed two special appeals, which were dismissed separately by judgement dated 25th July, 2006 and 05th September, 2006 respectively. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was filed, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by 04th April, 2007. The Special Leave Petition on the payment of bonus was however allowed by the Supreme Court by judgement dated 24th April, 2007.

(3.) During these proceedings before the Supreme Court, the workers moved an application under Section 6-H (1) for payment of wages and for reinstatement of their services. The Deputy Labour Commissioner by an order dated 07th August, 2004 directed the employers to pay the wages. The employers, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition no. 33988 of 2004, in which an interim order dated 1st September, 2004 was passed directing the employers to pay wages till the date of the alleged termination i.e. 10th October, 1998. The employers contended that pursuant to the suspension order dated 29th July, 1996, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, which culminated in the termination of their services on 10th October, 1998. It has also come on record that pursuant to the interim order dated 1st September, 2004, the employers paid a sum of Rs. 24,05,637.31/- towards wages upto 1st October, 1998.