KRISHAN LAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(2.) Petitioner joined service with the respondent-Management as a Ward Boy on 7.8.1998. Petitioner and 18 employees' services have been dispensed on 01.05.2002. Thereafter, in an industrial dispute, award was passed in favour of the employees, consequently, petitioner was reinstated with 50% back wages on 03.05.2005. Thereafter, 18 persons whose grievance is identical to that of petitioner, their reference was allowed on 18.07.2005 in similar terms like that of petitioner to the extent of reinstatement with 50% back wages. Respondent-Management preferred writ petition in which they have suffered order before this Court. It seems that the respondent-Management for the purpose of implementing award imposed oral condition that if the petitioner and others entered into agreement relating to giving up 50% back wages, they would be reinstated. Petitioner and 18 other employees agreed for entering into agreement. There were two separate agreements prepared and entered into. One is relating to the petitioner and respondent-Management and the other one is between 18 employees and respondent-Management. 18 persons (employees) they have pursued the matter by filing application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the 1947 Act') for implementation of the award. Thus, their cases were attained finality before this Court in CWP-5336-2012 in the case of Sheela v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, District Hisar and another. Whereas the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of delay. Further in CWP-5336-2012, matter was remanded to the Tribunal for execution of the award. Due to different agreement between the petitioner and 18 other employees, Labour Court distinguished the case of the petitioner to that of 18 employees. Hence, the present petition insofar as challenging the order passed by the Labour Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entering into agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-Management would be contrary to award passed by the Labour Court so also decision of this Court in CWP against the award dated 03.05.2005. Similarly situated persons like 18 employees who have also entered into agreement that they would be giving up back wages, slightly there is a difference between the two agreements. Insofar as petitioner's agreement is concerned, there is no rider that agreement would be subject to result of writ petition. Therefore, there is no much difference insofar as factual aspects are concerned. Consequently, the respondent-Management cannot discriminate petitioner insofar as extending the benefit of 50% back wages. It was also submitted that Labour Court has appreciated that award dated 03.05.2005 has attained finality before this Court in CWP filed by the respondents-Management so as to extend the benefit of 50% back wages.