STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. KASHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Judge has directed the State to implement the award passed by the Labour Court on 6.8.2008, and to give the minimum wages to the respondent-petitioner along with an interest of 12% per annum, and has imposed a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be recovered from the defaulting officers.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner, Kashi Singh, filed a writ petition before this Court for implementation of the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 6.8.2008. In the writ petition, Kashi Singh had submitted that by order dated 3.4.1980 he was initially appointed as a Surveyor. When his services were terminated on 31.12.1981, he raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court. On 11.12.1987, the learned Labour Court passed an award in his favour. The learned Labour Court not only declared the termination order as invalid, but also directed that Kashi Singh be treated as employed from 1.1.1982. It also directed that he shall be entitled to receive all salary and service benefits with continuity in service. The State Govt. decided not to challenge the award. Thus, it became final. However, as the award was not complied with, Kashi Singh was forced to prefer a writ petition before this Court. By judgment dated 13.1.2014 this Court had directed the respondents to implement the award within period of two weeks, and to pay the interest of 12% per annum on the arrears for the delayed period and had imposed a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be recovered from the defaulting officer, who failed to implement the award. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Jagmohan Saxena, the learned Addl. Advocate General, has contended that an amendment was made in Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby sub-sections (9) and (10) were inserted. It was prescribed that every award made by Labour Court shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of decree of a civil court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, according to sub-section (10), a duty was cast on the Labour Court to transmit the award to a civil court having jurisdiction, and such civil court shall execute the award as if it were a decree passed by it. However, the said procedure has not been followed. This aspect has escaped the notice of the learned Judge. Secondly, this is not the only case in which the State has faulted in implementing the award. There are thousands of other cases. Therefore, the consequence of the impugned judgment would be that the State may be saddled with an onerous financial liability. Therefore, the judgment deserves to be interfered with.