RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the impugned communications of even date, i.e. 11.9.1992 (Annexure P -3 and P -4), petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents, reducing the daily wage amount of the petitioners from Rs. 37.15/ - to Rs. 31/ -. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Assistant Pump Operators with the respondent department on daily wages basis. They were paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 37.75/ - per day. When their wages were sought to be reduced by the respondent department, petitioners approached the learned Labour Court by moving applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act' for short). After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that action of the respondent -department, reducing the wages of the petitioners was not justified. Applications of the petitioners were allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 1.6.1992 (Annexure P -1) and 6.9.1991 (Annexure P -2).

(2.) IT is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that the orders passed by the learned Labour Court were not challenged by the respondents and the same became final between the parties. In spite of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court vide Annexures P -1 and P -2, the impugned notices Annexures P -3 and P -4 were issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 4, whereby wages of the petitioners were again sought to be reduced. Reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners relying upon the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Since the wages of the petitioners were still being sought to be reduced despite the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court, it became a compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that once the learned Labour Court has passed the orders Annexures P -1 and P -2 and the same have become final between the parties, action of the respondent authorities issuing the impugned notices Annexures P -3 and P -4 was totally without jurisdiction. He further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition since services of petitioner No. 1 had been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 and he felt satisfied, an application bearing C.M. No. 11751 of 2003 was moved seeking withdrawal of the writ petition qua petitioner No. 1. Notice of this application was issued and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was allowed vide order dated 30.5.2003. Thus, the present writ petition survives only on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 11. He concluded by submitting that since the action of the respondents was in violation of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court vide Annexures P -1 and P -2, such an action was not sustainable in law. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned notices Annexures P -3 and P -4 by allowing the present writ petition.