Karam Chandra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was engaged on 01.11.1980 on the post of Mali as muster roll employee on daily wages by the Executive Engineer, Sarju Nahar Khand-I, Balrampur, Gonda and had worked continuously till his services were terminated on 14.08.1989 without following mandatory provisions under Section 6 N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It is in the aforesaid facts that the petitioner raised a grievance before the labour court by filing a Case No. 14/91 and after considering oral and documentary evidence, the punishment order was set aside by award dated 17.06.1997 and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and he was also held to be entitled to 50% of the daily wages along with the cost of Rs. 250/-

The respondents being aggrieved by the award dated 17.06.1997 had filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 4482/1998 and stated that the Tribunal has erred in treating the Irrigation Department as an industry and the same was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K.K. Somasetty, 1997 (5) SCC 434, accordingly this Court had remanded the matter back to the labour court for consideration of the fact again. The Tribunal again allowed the claim of the petitioner on 30.11.2012 holding that there was no irregularity in their previous award and the application for recall filed by the respondents were rejected.

In the aforesaid circumstances a writ petition was filed before this Court being Writ C No. 1007718/2014 where the respondents had again urged the aspect of Irrigation Department not being an industry as per U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this court considered the subsequent judgment in the case of Desh Rah Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1182 and Bengalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978 (2) SCC 2013 and held that the Irrigation Department would be an industry within the definition of the Act and accordingly dismissed the writ petition filed by the State.

Subsequently even the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court by the State was dismissed on 24.02.2023 in Special Leave Petition (Civil Diary) No. 445/2023. Despite the SLP has been dismissed, the respondents did not comply with the award passed by the labour court and accordingly the petitioner had approached labour Court for execution of the award but the said application was rejected by means of order dated 23.01.2024 stating that for gratuity it is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and after recording the same closed the proceedings.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner have been agitated his service disputes since 1989 and despite an award having been passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997, the same has not been complied with by the respondents despite being unsuccessful before the High court as well as before the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, considering the fact that termination of the petitioner has been held to be illegal and arbitrary and violative of Section 6 N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner ought to have been reinstated by the respondents but this Court see no reason as to why the order of the labour court dated 17.06.1997 and 18.01.1996 were not complied with by the respondents.

This Court further noticed that even the writ petition assailing the award was dismissed by this Court which was further upheld by the Supreme Court in a special leave petition. Accordingly, the respondents are under a mandate to comply the award dated 17.06.1997 and should have reinstated the petitioner in service along with 50% back wages.

Merely because the petitioner has not been reinstated in service, he has been deprived of his regular salary and all the other service benefits and it has been stated that had the petitioner been reinstated he would have superannuated on 31.12.2019 and would have been entitled to the post retiral benefits if the same were admissible.

Accordingly, let the aforesaid be done expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. In case the respondents do not comply with the aforesaid orders in the time prescribed, the petitioner shall be additionally entitled to 10% of the amount. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.)