EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MADHUKAR BAPURAO BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State, through its Executive Engineer, takes exception to dismissal of Writ Petition No.2514 of 2006 by learned single Judge, by his judgment dated 16th November, 2006. The facts in the context of which the appeal has been preferred are as under :

(2.) The respondent was engaged as an unskilled labour by the appellant w.e.f. 1981. He was discontinued from 01.10.1987 without assigning any reason. A dispute was raised before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who referred the same before the Labour Court at Nagpur. In the said dispute the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dham Unnati Dharan, Sub-Division (Pipri), Wardha was arrayed as respondent. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, by her award dated 29.03.1984, held that the reference was not bad for non-joinder of the Executive Engineer, who was, in fact, employer who had effected the termination. She also held that the employer had complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by offering compensation to the workman. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment the learned Judge Labour Court observed that since the termination was effected by Executive Engineer, the only authority to reinstate the workman by withdrawing the said order could be the Executive Engineer and as the termination was not by Sub Divisional Engineer it would not be proper to direct the Sub Divisional Engineer to withdraw the order not issued by him, and who would not be in a position to execute orders, if any, passed. The learned Judge, therefore, answered the reference in negative.

(3.) In respect of the same termination dated 01.10.1987 a fresh dispute was raised and was again referred by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur to the Labour Court. This reference eventually came to be numbered as 8/1995 and was answered in the affirmative by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Wardha by her judgment dated 22nd March, 2005. In the statement of claim made by the workman he had specifically referred to earlier Reference No.122/1988 and the award passed thereon on 29.03.1994. He had stated that though the termination was bad in law the reference was answered in the negative because the relief was not sought against the Executive Engineer who had effected the termination. The employer had also filed reply to the statement of claim, stating that the averments about institution of Reference No.122 of 1988 and answered in negative by award dated 29.03.1994 were matters of record and did not call for any reply. The employer-Executive Engineer had further stated that in view of the earlier award it was not open to the workman to agitate the same matter all over again.