MORINDA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, MORINDA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5), order dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-7), wherein the application moved under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the workman on the basis of award dated 10.05.1993 (Annexure-P-1), has been allowed in favour of the workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5) cannot stand in view of the fact that the workman was appointed on casual seasonal worker and on the passing of the award in his favour granting him reinstatement with continuity of service, he should have joined as a casual seasonal worker and, therefore, order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5), is contrary to the said position wherein the workman has been granted the benefit of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the period 17.09.1993 to 16.10.1994 as a regular employee. He submits that in the subsequent application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act preferred by the workman, orders whereof have been passed on 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7), the Labour Court has granted the benefit to the workman treating him as a seasonal worker. He, therefore, contends that the findings as has come in the subsequent orders clearly show that an illegality was committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5). He contends that immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings in pursuance to the award dated 14.03.1997 wherein the petitioner-management un-successfully challenged this award till the Supreme Court, the workman, vide letter dated 27.10.1994 was called upon to be present on duty on 30.10.1994 which the workman failed to join. Thereafter, registered letter was sent to him which again the workman failed to respond, leading to publication in daily Ajit, dated 31.12.1994, to which the respondent-workman replied that the question of his joining as a seasonal employee does not arise and he be reinstated in accordance with award passed by the Labour Court. On this basis, counsel for the petitioner contends that the Management was always ready and willing to take back the workman and, therefore, for non joining of the workman, the Management cannot be held responsible and he shall not be entitled to the claim, benefit of which has been granted to the workman by the Labour Court for the period 01.11.1994 onwards till the date of his joining duty.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5) stands already complied with. He further submits that the order has attained finality for the reason that it has not been challenged within a reasonable time and the Management cannot be allowed to approach this Court and challenge the order dated 14.03.1997 after 11 years thereby to turn around and unsettle the situation by challenging the same in the present writ petition. The rights between the parties stood crystalised and if the said order is interfered with at this stage, it would amount to un-settling a settled position at a belated stage. He further submits that the findings have already been given by the Labour Court in its order dated 14.03.1997(Annexure-P-5) where the Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the question of the workman not being allowed to join as per the award and a finding has been recorded that the Management was at fault as it had not been allowing the workman to join his duties. He also submits that even the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Labour Court to oversee and supervise the reinstatement of the workman which effort also failed. On these basis, he submits that the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted and the impugned orders Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7 deserve to be upheld.