* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11553/2009
SHRI DHARAMVIR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
THE ASSTT. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
& ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate for Mr.
Amitabh Marwah, Advocate for R-
1.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for MCD.
Date of Decision: 24.05.2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No.
in the Digest?
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent no.1/Assistant Labour Commissioner to take a decision on the complaint dated 21.06.2004 under Section 2 (ra) read with Section 25 U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also seeking direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to implement the award dated 25.09.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. I in I.D. No. 06/2000 which was published on 21.02.2003.
W.P.(C) 11553/2009 Page 1 of 4
2. In view of the award passed on 25.09.2002, the MCD was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continued service and grant full back wages. The said award was published on 22.02.2003 and was enforceable on 23.03.2003. Admittedly, the MCD failed to implement the said award despite issuance of a legal notice dated 06.03.2003 by the petitioner to the MCD. Thereafter the petitioner also filed an application under Section 33 C-1 of the Industrial Disputes Act to seek recovery of back wages.
3. The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the respondent no.1 has not been taking steps to implement the award despite a complaint filed by him. By order dated 28.01.2010, the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner was ordered to be present in court on 10.02.2010. Mr. Yogi Raj, Assistant Labour Commissioner was present in court on 10.02.2010 and he produced the RC file in the court.
4. As regards the back wages, the Assistant Labour Commissioner informed the court that the said amount had been paid to the petitioner by the MCD and as regards reinstatement of the petitioner, the MCD did not comply with the order therefore respondent no.1 could not enforce the said award by taking any action against the MCD in view of the Notification dated 05.05.2008 issued by the Government of India.
5. It is observed by this court in the order dated 10.02.2010 that perusal of the note sheet dated 04.02.2010 signed by the Deputy W.P.(C) 11553/2009 Page 2 of 4 Labour Commissioner reveals that the said complaint of the petitioner was not processed after August 2005 as the said note sheet of the file was mixed up with the other file. Therefore no action was taken in the matter by the competent authority. In view of the above, on the last date of hearing, an order was passed to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the matter as to why no steps were taken by the concerned officer on the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 2 (ra) of the I.D. Act and to ensure the enforcement of the award which was passed on 25.09.2002.
6. The commissioner of MCD was also directed to file an affidavit as to why the MCD did not implement the award.
7. When the matter was taken up today, it appeared from the record that no affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of MCD as directed by the Court. Learned counsel for the MCD sought more time in this respect.
8. As regard the filing of enquiry report by way of affidavit, the interim report of enquiry conducted by Dr. R.D. Srivastava, Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi was handed over to the court during the course of hearing by the learned counsel wherein, as per report, further time was sought till 2nd week of June, 2010 for filing Action Taken Report on the issue.
9. It appears from the record that the award dated 25.09.2002 has not been implemented for more than eight years by the MCD nor the complaint dated 21.06.2004 filed by the petitioner has been W.P.(C) 11553/2009 Page 3 of 4 considered by the respondent no.1 for about six years. No explanation is coming forward on behalf of the respondents as to why they did not implement the award for such a long time. The MCD has also failed to file an affidavit in this regard as directed by this court. It is evident that there is no impediment in implementation of the award.
10. After considering the entire matter, the present writ petition is allowed and this court is of the view that before taking any action in the matter, let compliance be made in the following manner: A. The Secretary, Labour, Government of NCT of Delhi is directed to submit the final report by 31st July, 2010 in compliance with the order dated 10.02.2010.
B. As regards implementation of the award, the present writ petition is allowed and the following mandamus is issued to the Respondent no.2/MCD to implement the award dated 25.09.2002 on or before 15.07.2010.
11. In case the award is not implemented within this period, the respondent no.1 shall initiate the appropriate action under Section 25 U of the Act against the respondent no.2 by 30.08.2010.
12. List the matter for direction on 01.09.2010.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
MAY 24, 2010 dp W.P.(C) 11553/2009 Page 4 of 4