ANIL KUMAR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BOKARO STEEL PLANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to regularise the petitioner in the post of Junior Sports Organizer with effect from 1.12.1985 in terms of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in reference case No. 6 of 1995. The petitioner's further prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the letter No. Pers/R/2003 issued under the signature of AM/Mgr(Pers/REctt.) for Sail, Bokaro on 1.1.2003, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given offer of appointment to the post of Khalasi regularizing the petitioner to that post in the then applicable time scale with effect from 1.12.1986. The facts in brief as stated are as under: This case has a chequered history. The petitioner was appointed on casual basis as Junior Sports Organizer on 1.12.1985 and he continued in the same post for good 10 years without being regularized. Being constrained, he raised an Industrial Dispute and a reference was made under Section 10(1)(D) of the Industrial Dispute Act which is quoted as under: Whether the relationship of employer and employee is established between the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and Shri Anil Kumar Junior Sports Organiser, a workman of Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council, Bokaro Steel City established by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant? If so, whether not to make regular the services, of Shri Anil Kumar by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to? Finally, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City gave an award in favour of the petitioner herein. Which is quoted as under' On the basis of above discussed facts, circumstances and materials available on the record, I find and hold that employer and employee relationship exists in between the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and the workman Anil Kumar, I also find and hold that not to regularise the service of the workman Anil Kumar by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant is improper and unjustified As the workman Anil Kumar is entitled to regularisation of his service and all other benefits as indicated in para -13 and 14 hereinabove. The management company is directed to implement the award within two months from the date of its pronouncement

(2.) It appears that the Management, Bokaro Steel Plant, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 45 of 2002 challenging the award which was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2002 passed by this Hon'ble Court by a speaking order. The Management, Bokaro Steel Plant preferred a L.P.A. No. 341/2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2002 passed by this Court. Thereafter, the Management preferred a S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20343/2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of award having attained finality up till Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Management did not implement the award and ultimately he was constrained to file a representation on 16.12.2002 to implement the award which resulted in reply vide impugned letter dated 1.1.2003 which is sought to be challenged in this Court by which the Management offered the petitioner to appoint at lower grade and different post named as 'Khalasi' in stead on the post he was working. This gave a fresh cause of action to challenge the same in the present writ petition. The further contention raised by the petitioner is that he is entitled to be regularized against the post on which he was working more so when the award in his favour has attained finality up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) The counsel for the respondents in its reply, has submitted that the post of Junior Sports Organizer was not available and it was on this back ground that the impugned letter was issued on 1.1.2003. He further submits that in their counter affidavit they have also given the option to the petitioner to join the post of Junior Recorder which according to them is of L 5 grade and in a similar scale of pay.