V V YOGANANDA RAO Vs. ADDJ INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who worked as a Works Inspector in A.P. Construction Corporation was retrenched on 5-12-1979 and on raising an industrial dispute by him the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.31 /82 directed the A.P. Construction Corporation to reinstate him to service with continuity of service apart from back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of retrenchment by its award dated 7-12-1984. Questioning the said award, the Corporation seemed to have filed W.P. No.4620/85 which was ultimately dismissed on 15-9-1989. When the award is not being implemented, the petitioner seemed to have filed E.P. No.5/93. The Tribunal directed the successor in interest i.e., 3rd respondent herein to pay the back wages and also to reinstate the petitioner to duty. But, without reinstating the petitioner to duty the 3rd respondent seemed to have paid arrears from 5-12-1979 to 31-12-1993 in the time-scale of pay attached to the post in which he was working prior to retrenchment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed M.P. 30/96 in the above E.P., and under the orders of the Tribunal the arrears were paid from 1-1-1994 to 30-6-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner seemed to have been appointed as NMR on daily wage basis on 13-3-1997 and the 3rd respondent started paying him only daily wages. In those circumstances the petitioner filed E.P. 7/1995 claiming an amount of Rs.74,297/-, the difference in wages from 13-3-1997 to 30-6-1998, As the respondents have not complied with the order of the Tribunal in true spirit, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the respondents is that due to certain administrative constraints, the petitioner could not be appointed on regular basis and that apart not only the petitioner but some other employees of the defunct Corporation have to be accommodated and for that the Government has to take a policy decision. Hence for the time being they are paying daily wages to the petitioner. This Court cannot countenance the stand taken by the respondents. The petitioner cannot be placed in a worse position than what he was prior to retrenchment, that too after adjudication of the dispute by a competent Tribunal. Even if respondents are having some difficulties in regularising the services of the petitioner, paying of daily wages to the petitioner after having reinstated him to duty nearly after 8 years after this Court dismissed the writ petition, shows the law abiding nature of the respondents. The respondents now having reinstated the petitioner to duty, started paying him the salary on daily wage basis. As long as the petitioner discharges the duties attached to the post, the respondents cannot deny him the living wages on the ground of their administrative difficulties. Hence, the respondents are directed to pay the arrears due to the petitioner in the time- scale of pay attached to the post from the date of reinstatement i.e., 13-3-1997 till this date within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Though there are other similarly placed candidates whose cases for regularisation have not been considered, the case of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be ignored, as the petitioner is governed by the orders of the Tribunal, as confirmed by this Court, and they cannot withhold the regularisation of the services of thf petitioner on the ground that they have to take a policy decision with regard to the other employees who have to be absorbed on regular basis. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that a post of Work Inspector under the administrative control of 7th respondent is lying vacant and almost all the officers have addressed letters to the 2nd respondent to absorb the petitioner in the said vacancy to avoid legal complications. But their request fell to the deaf ear of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 2nd respondent is given three months time to regularise the services of the petitioner and it is needless to observe that the regularisation orders to be given to the petitioner shall be in consonance with the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D. 31/1982 as confirmed by the orders of this Court in W.P. No.4620/1985.

(3.) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. But, in the circumstances, no order as to costs.