PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Vs. AMBIKA PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the Labour Court and order dated 5.12.2000 passed by the Industrial Court. By the said orders, the Labour Court allowed the application filed by respondent -workman under section 31(3) of the MP. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and directed the petitioners herein to classify the respondent as a permanent employee. The appeal filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Industrial Court and, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition in brief are that the respondent was engaged as a daily wager and he worked with the petitioners. Since he has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, he approached the Labour Court Jabalpur by making an application under section 31(3) read with section 61 of the Act in the year 1996 for his classification. The Labour Court entertained the application of the respondent, issued notices to the petitioners and a written statement was filed by the petitioners denying the claim made by the respondent. The Labour Court recorded the evidence and thereafter came to the conclusion that though specifically the respondent could not adduce any evidence that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, but from the documents produced by the petitioners, it was proved that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year at least in the year 1995 and was in the employment continuously, therefore, allowed the application of the respondent and directed that the respondent be classified as a permanent employee after six months with effect from 1.7.1991 and to pay him the wages of a permanent employee from the date of filing of the application before the Labour Court i.e. with effect from 24.5.1996. The petitioners herein being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. The said appeal was heard by the appellate authority and was decided by order dated 5.12.2000. However, nothing was done thereafter by the petitioners and they kept quite. The order passed by the Labour Court was not complied with though according to the petitioners certain correspondence was going on and certain orders were issued that the respondent would not be entitled to any arrears of salary since he was already paid the salary fixed for a permanent labourer. When the respondent was not being granted the benefit of the order passed by the Labour Court, he approached the Labour Court for execution of its order and when the proceedings were initiated in that respect, certain objections were raised. Ultimately, the matter came up in a writ petition before this Court at the behest of the respondent where the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court to implement the order and decide such claim. As this was not being done, a writ petition was required to be filed by the respondent before this Court being Writ Petition No. 10430/2010 and as soon as the notices of the said writ petition were issued to the respondents in the said writ petition, they thought it better to challenge the order of the Labour Court and Industrial Court and they have filed this writ petition.

(2.) This Court has entertained the writ petition though the same was filed belatedly and issued notices to the respondent. A Division Bench of this Court has granted an interim stay subject to the compliance of provisions of section 65(3) of the Act. This is how both the writ petitions were tagged together and heard together.

(3.) The respondent has been served and an application for dismissal of the writ petition has been filed stating that in view of the order passed by this Court in another writ petition, wherein while considering the submission made with respect to the non-implementation of the order of the Labour Court for want of vacancy or post was rejected by this Court and such an order has been affirmed by the Apex Court and thus, it is contended that in fact on lame excuses, the order of the Labour Court was not implemented and unnecessarily to harass the respondent, the present writ petition has been filed only when the respondent has sought the implementation of the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court by way of filing a writ petition before this Court. It is, thus, contended that the writ petition is misconceived apart from the fact that it is hopelessly delayed and is liable to be dismissed on account of laches on the part of petitioners, with costs.