EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATION, SUB URBAN DIVISION, UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another glaring example of high handedness at the hands of the petitioner-management, to avoid strict implementation of the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, thereby causing undue harassment to the private respondents-workmen. The above-said two identical writ petitions filed by the same management, are proposed to be decided together as both the writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and raise common issues. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out from CWP No.453 of 2014.

(2.) Facts first. Respondents No. 4 to 11 in CWP No.453 of 2014 and respondents No. 4 to 32 in CWP No.477 of 2014 were employed by the petitioner-management on daily wages on DC rates. Services of the private respondents-workmen in both the writ petitions were terminated. The private respondents-workmen raised the industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 22.1.1993. The learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the private respondents-workmen vide its award dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure P-1), directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 40% back wages. When the petitioner-management neither challenged the above-said award dated 4.12.2002 nor implemented the same, the workmen approached this Court by way of CWP No.11022 of 2003, seeking implementation of the above-said award.

(3.) Having been served with notice of motion issued by this Court in CWP No.11022 of 2003 (Karambir Singh and others v. H.S.E.B. and others), petitioner-management having found itself caught on the wrong foot, woke up from the slumber and filed CWP No.11377 of 2004 (Executive Engineer, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sonepat and another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court etc.), challenging the above-said award dated 4.12.2002 passed by the learned Labour Court. Both these writ petitions came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.10.2004 (Annexure P-2). CWP No.11022 of 2003 filed by the private-respondents-workmen was allowed, whereas CWP No.11377 of 2004 filed by the present petitionermanagement was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitionermanagement filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. With slight modification limited to the extent that since the workmen raised the demand on 22.1.1993, they shall be entitled for the back wages only from that date, the above-said Division Bench judgment of this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 20.1.2005 (Annexure P-3).