BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER, U T CHANDIGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Block Development and Panchayat Officer, U.T. Chandigarh through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India takes strong exception to the award rendered by respondent No.1 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh dated 1st August, 1990, vie which U.T. Block Development Workers Union, U.T. Chandigarh succeeded in getting some of the demands made by it. The three demands subject matter of adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, were that the workmen of Workers Union were entitled to regularisation who had completed one year service as also bonus for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and grant of leave as per law to all the workmen. The Government made a reference on 22nd October, 1988 to the Labour Court for determining existing disputes between U.T. Block Development Workers Union Chandigarh and the Block Development Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. After considering the evidence which was placed before it, the Labour Court adjudicated that those employees who had completed more than 240 days continuous service and who are workmen within the definition of 'workman', their services should be regularised on the expiry of the said period. Regarding the demand of bonus, it was held that members of Union were entitled to get bonus as this benefit was being extended by the U.T. Administration to its other employees who fall within the purview of the instructions issued by the Government in this regard from time to time. With regard to the demand of leave, it was held that the benefit will automatically be extended to the employees whose services would be regularised by virtue of decision given under issue No.l.

(2.) Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contends that concept of regularisation and consequential benefits flowing therefrom is wholly unknown to the industrial law under the Industrial Disputes Act or any other law enacted by the Legislature. The workmen covered under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has only an assured right or rights that may be available to them under the Act and so far as retrenchment is concerned, he can be asked to quit subject to the formalities of payment of retrenchment compensation etc. Even a regular workman can be asked to quit subject, of course, to the essential formalities like giving him retrenchment compensation etc If this be true even with regard to regular workmen, the directions to regularise the services of the workmen cannot be issued, contends the learned counsel.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2, the only contesting respondent U.T. Block Development Workers Union, Chandigarh, has filed reply. By way of preliminary objection, it is averred that the answering Union represents the workers of the U,T. Administration in U.T. Block and Panchayat Office. As they are employees of U.T. Administration any grievance regarding the conditions of service can be taken to Central Administrative Tribunal. It is a matter of procedure that the employees cannot approach the Central Administrative Tribunal directly if such employees are governed by the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. The order of the Industrial Tribunal can be challenged only before the Central Administrative Tribunal and not before the High Court. The Central Adniinistrative Tribunal is as good as the High Court, so far as the U.T. Employees are concerned, it is also pleaded that no evidence was produced before the Labour Court though the petitioner was represented through various representatives at initial stage, but later on, the petitioner chose to be absent. The ex parte proceedings were thereafter taken. Unless and until the ex parte proceedings are set aside, the award cannot be challenged on merits. It is also averred that no objection was taken before the Labour Court that the department is not an industry. In so far as the facts giving rise to the award are concerned, the same have not been disputed.