SAT PAL Vs. PICCADILY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order, we shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 5432, 6744, 6745, 6747, 674and, 6991, 7039, 7111, 7112, 7238, 7239, 7257, 7261, 7265, 7266, 7270, 7272, 7288 and 7305/2007. The facts have been takefn from C. W. P. No. 5432/2007 titled as Sat Pal Singh v. Piccadily agro Industries Limited, Bhadson, District karnal and Others.

(2.) THE case of the workman in nutshell is that he was working as Mazdoor with respondent No. 1 since crushing season of 1994-95. The petitioner had worked for 7 seasons without any break and has completed 240 days in the respondent mill. In the crushing season 2001-02, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1 did not allow him to join his duty ignoring his seniority. The petitioner and other workmen contacted the respondent-mill on number of occasions and requested them to allow to join their duty but the respondent-mill put off the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The petitioner aggrieved by the illegal act of respondent filed a demand notice on July 27, 2002 and the matter was referred to Labour Court for adjudication under section 19 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide reference dated August 17, 2004. During the pendency Of the above mentioned proceedings before the Labour Court, a settlement was arrived at, between the petitioner and respondent-mill and it was agreed upon between the parties that mill will prepare the seniority list of the workmen and would allow the petitioner to work in the immediate crushing season according to the seniority and award in this regard dated October 14, 2005 was passed by Labour Court/lok adalat.

(3.) THE petitioner, thereafter, approached the respondent mill for immediate crushing season but again the respondent refused to take the petitioner workman back on the work and did not allow him to join the respondent-mill. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 6 in the list prepared by the respondent. The petitioner along with others approached the labour and Settling (sic Settlement) Officer, respondent No. 3 for implementation of the award. The Labour Inspector passed an order dated March 13, 2006 vide which it has been illegally held that award dated October 14, 2005 has been complied with. That order dated march 13,2006 has been challenged in the writ petition. The order of the Labour Inspector respondent No. 3 defeats the very purpose of settlement arrived at between the respondent-milt and petitioner- workman and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the authority Morinda Co op. Sugan Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Others AIR 1996 SC 332 : (1995) 5 SCC 653 : 1996-I-LLJ-870.