Devender Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5267 Del

$~9
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on: 27th October, 2014

+                           W.P.(C) No.1189 /2014


DEVENDER KUMAR                                             ..... Petitioner
                            Represented by:   Mr.Rajiv Agarwal and
                                              Mr.     Sachin       Kumar,
                                              Advocates.

                            Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                   Represented by:            Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate
                                              for Respondent No.1/UOI.
                                              Mr.Arun Birbal and
                                              Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
                                              for Respondent No.2 /DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the respondent No.1/Union of India (UOI) to perform its duties as provided under Section 12(5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short 'ÍD Act') by issuing reference order to the concerned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal expeditiously and within a period not exceeding two weeks from the receipt of failure report from the Conciliation Officer.

2. Further seeks directions thereby directing the respondent No.1/UOI

to perform its duties to review at least occasionally the working of the various labour legislations and more particularly of the ID Act.

3. Mr.Rajiv Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that claim was raised by the petitioner on 04.05.2011 and the failure report was submitted to the respondent No.1/UOI on 02.05.2013, i.e., after almost two years. Whereas as per Section 12(6) of ID Act, a report is required to be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government.

4. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in submitting the failure report and thereafter in passing the order dated 05.02.2014 by the Section Officer of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, whereby stated as under:-

"Subject:- Industrial dispute between the Management of DDA vs. Municipal Employees Union

..........

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No.ALC-II/8(67)/2011 dated 1.5.2013 received from ALC (C), Delhi on the above mentioned subject and to say that prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:

"It is reported that it is held by various court that compassionate appointment is not a method of recruitment (2009-LLR-1203) 1997 FLR 768(SC) 2003 (99) (FLR 337(SC) 2006 (110) FLR 883 (SC). In view of that, this is not a fit case to be referred for adjudication by CGIT".

Hence, the matter raised by the Union cannot be considered for adjudication."

5. Learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities are not much concerned about the petitioner/workman and in almost every matter there is inordinate delay in passing the orders and recommending the matters to the Labour Courts.

6. Mr.Agarwal submits that the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2014 will be challenged before the appropriate Forum; however, the respondents may be burdened with heavy cost for not following the due procedure in passing the aforementioned orders as per the provisions prescribed under the ID Act.

7. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and thereafter his mother died in 2005, however, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute in the year 2011. Thus, the petitioner himself has raised the issue belatedly; therefore, he cannot blame the respondent authorities if they have taken long time in passing the orders in question.

8. While disputing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsels for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this does not justify the inordinate delay taken by the respondent authorities in passing the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2014. Moreover, while passing the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities recorded that compassionate appointment is not a method of recruitment, which needs to be adjudicated upon. Therefore, he prays that the matter be referred to the CGIT for adjudication.

9. I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also come across number of cases where the respondent authorities are not sensitized to the matters relating to the labour class and a workman has to wait for number of years to get the conciliation report and if the conciliation is failed, the respondents authorities take lot of time to refer the matters to the Labour Courts. Thus, the poor workmen have to wait for years together for getting their legitimate rights to be adjudicated.

10. Keeping in mind the above noted facts and also that the same issue has already been taken up in another W.P.(C) No.7118/2014, no order is required to be passed in this petition.

11. However, while disposing the present petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 05.02.2014, I impose a cost of Rs.15,000/- upon respondent No.1/UOI to be paid in favour of the petitioner/workman within two weeks from today.

12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to challenge the order dated 05.02.2014 before the appropriate Forum.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) OCTOBER 27, 2014 sb