Shri Dharamvir Sharma vs The Asstt. Labour Commissioner, ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2753 Del

*      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.

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

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

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