ASSISTANT EIGINEER DISTRIBUTORY SUB DIVISION RIGHT MAIN CANAL CHAMBAL PROJECT ANTA KOTA Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 28. 4. 1993 (Annexure 26) mainly on the ground that reference was vague and further same become infructuous on account of taking workmen on duty during the conciliation proceedings.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the writ petition are that 7 workmen were engaged/employed on 10. 11. 1978 as casual labour on daily wages on the post of Beldar by the petitioner. The workmen continued to work upto 30. 9. 1980, but from 1. 10. 1980 they refused to perform the work of excavation in the Right Main Canal Sub- Division Anta. It is further stated in the writ petition that the workmen absented themselves from duty w. e. f. 1. 10. 1980. On 3. 10. 1980, letters were sent by some of the workmen namely Ramkishan, Ravinder Kumar, Ratan Singh and Kishorilal to the Assistant Engineer alleging that they were not permitted to work on the site. Thereafter, on 5. 10. 1980, Moolchand Mistri of Distributory Sub-Division, Anta wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer informing that the workmen Ratan Singh, Ram Kishan and Prahalad working under him had not come to duty. It is further stated by the petitioner that on 8. 10. 1980, the Assistant Engineer informed the workmen Ratan Singh, Ram Kishore and Prahalad that since they are not attending the duties, they would be treated as willful absentee from duty. On 9. 10. 1980, the workmen sent letter to the Assistant Engineer Complaining that despite their reporting on duty they are being marked as absent. On 15. 10. 1980, notice was issued by the Assistant Engineer to the workmen for joining the work. On 16. 10. 1980, a letter was sent by Moolchand Mistri to the Assistant Engineer reporting that the workmen had not reported on duty from 1. 10. 1980 to 16. 10. 1980. On 24. 10. 1980, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Engineer to the workmen informing as to why action against them should not be taken under Rule 27 (5) and 26 (5) of the Work-Charge Rules, 1964 for remaining willful absent from duty voluntarily. On 6. 11. 1980, the workmen approached the Joint Labour Commissioner and a notice was issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner to the petitioner for reporting before the Conciliation Officer. During conciliation proceedings, the workmen have been allowed to join the duty. On 4. 8. 1981, the Assistant Engineer informed the Conciliation Officer that the workmen have reported on duty and they have been taken back on muster-roll. The workmen worked from March April, 1981 to August/september, 1981 for about 77 days to 114 days. From August/september, 1981, workmen again absented from duty. On 27. 2. 1982, the Conciliation Officer gave failure report and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kota by the Government. The reference dated 1. 10. 1982 made by the Government is as under:-

(3.) IN support of their case, the workmen Kishorilal, Prahalad, Yogendra Kumar, Kanwarlal, Ravindra Kumar, Ramkishan and Ratan Singh filed their affidavits and they were cross examined by the petitioner - Management. The petitioner Management filed affidavits of B. N. P. Rajvanshi, Raghunath Singh, Nahar Singh, Moolchand, Nand Singh & Ranjeet Singh and they were cross examined by representative of workmen.