EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P W D Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are challenging the Award, dated October 10, 1995, passed by the Labour Court Jaipur on a reference made by the State Government vide Notification dated May 25, 1991. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence and materials before it, recorded a finding that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of their termination/retrenchment. Their termination was held to be invalid and inoperative as it was made without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) THE learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, could not point out any material or evidence on the record to show that the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court are vitiated in any manner, less to say any mistake apparent on face of the record. I am unable to understand as to why this petition has been preferred to burden the State exchequer when the Award cannot be assailed on any ground. Not only this, the Award to reinstate the workmen was passed on October 10, 1995 and it has not been complied with though more than 13 months have passed since then. The result of inaction on the part of Officer concerned is that workmen shall be entitled to get full wages for the intervening period without doing any work. It is a wasteful loss of public money on account of his dereliction or laxity.

(3.) THE unsatisfactory manner in which these cases of the State Government are conducted has become a matter of great concern for all. Large amounts of public money is being spent on these litigations, hence there has to be certain amount of accountability/responsibility towards the people of the country. This Court has lamented at times to this state of affairs but it has so far evinced no appropriate response for improvement. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Rahul Rasgotra (1994-I-LLJ-913) has expressed similar anguish thus at P. 919 :