Sunder Lal Jain Hospital ... vs Secretary, Labour-Cum-Labour ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2217 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 26th April, 2011.

+                                  W.P.(C) 12629/2004

%        SUNDER LAL JAIN HOSPITAL
         KARAMCHARI UNION                            ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Ashwani K. Sakhuja & Mr.
                               Preet Saini, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         SECRETARY, LABOUR-CUM-LABOUR COMMISSIONER
         & ANR                                   ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for R-1.
                               Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                               J.K. Sharma, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a Union of the workmen of the

respondent no.2 Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. It is the case of the petitioner

Union that an award dated 9th August, 1996 on a reference under Section

10 of the I.D. Act of the disputes between the Sunder Lal Jain Charitable

Hospital and "its workmen C/o Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital Staff

Association" was published. It is further the case of the petitioner Union

that under Issues No.5 & 7 in the said award, directions were issued to the

Hospital to lay down a policy; (i) in black and white so that it is clear as to

how a particular workman will attain the status of permanent employee and

(ii) to fix running pay scales of the employees so that they can get their

regular increments and to pay running pay scales to those in other similar

Hospitals in Delhi. The grievance of the petitioner Union is that the

respondent no.2 Hospital has not complied with the aforesaid part of the

award even though there is no challenge thereto. The petitioner Union

claims to have approached the respondent no.1 for implementation of the

aforesaid part of the award but contends that no action whatsoever has

been taken on the said application of the petitioner Union for

implementation of the aforesaid part of the award including by taking

action under Section 29 of the I.D. Act. The petitioner Union seeks

mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to initiate proceedings for

implementation of the aforesaid part of the award.

2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been

completed. Though this writ petition was sometimes listed with certain

other writ petitions pertaining to the Hospitals but finding the controversy

in the present writ petition to be de hors the other writ petitions, this writ

petition has been taken up for hearing today.

3. The senior counsel for the respondent no.2 Hospital has invited

attention to the counter affidavit and has contended that while the dispute

resulting in the award aforesaid was raised by the "Sunder Lal Jain

Charitable Hospital Staff Association", the present writ petition has been

filed by "Sunder Lal Jain Hospital Karamchari Union". It is contended

that the petitioner Union is a Union of ex-employees of the respondent

no.2 Hospital and of certain outsiders and the respondent no.2 Hospital has

since already arrived at a settlement with its workmen represented by the

"Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital Staff Association" and owing to

which settlement, the aforesaid part of the award stands implemented.

4. The counsel for the petitioner Union has contended that the

reference was made way back in the year 1987 and over a period of time,

the workmen of the Hospital have re-constituted themselves and the

workmen for whose benefit the award aforesaid was made, are now

members of the petitioner Union and as such the petitioner Union had

applied to the respondent no.1 for implementation of the award and has

filed the present writ petition. He also controverts that the award has been

implemented.

5. The aforesaid disputes cannot be adjudicated in the present

proceedings. It is for the respondent no.1 who is stated to have been

approached by the petitioner for implementation of the award, to in

accordance with law adjudicate whether the petitioner Union has any locus

to seek implementation of the award or not and also whether the award has

been implemented or not and if finds the award to have been not

implemented and to have been approached by the appropriate person/party,

to in accordance with law implement the award.

6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the following

directions:-

A. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner/Implementation Officer, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar,

Delhi on 20th May, 2011 at 1500 hours.

B The petitioner Union is directed to file a fresh application for

implementation of the award with advance copy to the counsel for

the respondent Hospital on or before 10th May, 2011.

C. The respondent no.2 Hospital to also on that date i.e. 20 th

May, 2011 file its response to the said implementation application.

D. The counsel for the petitioner Union states that he will be the

counsel in the proceedings before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and all pleadings in this regard can be served on him

and all inquiries in this regard can also be served on the petitioner

Union through him.

E. Considering that the matter has remained pending for long,

the Assistant Labour Commissioner is directed to dispose of the said

application by a reasoned order on or before 30 th September, 2011

and if finds the award to have been not implemented and

implementable at the instance of the petitioner Union, to thereafter

immediately proceed to implement the award.

No order as to costs.

Copy of this order be given Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) APRIL 26, 2011 bs