Judgment:
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to regularise the petitioner in the post of Junior Sports Organizer with effect from 1.12.1985 in terms of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, in reference case No. 6 of 1995. The petitioner's further prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the letter No. Pers/R/2003 issued under the signature of AM/Mgr(Pers/REctt.) for Sail, Bokaro on 1.1.2003, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given offer of appointment to the post of Khalasi regularizing the petitioner to that post in the then applicable time scale with effect from 1.12.1986.
The facts in brief as stated are as under:
This case has a chequered history. The petitioner was appointed on casual basis as Junior Sports Organizer on 1.12.1985 and he continued in the same post for good 10 years without being regularized. Being constrained, he raised an Industrial Dispute and a reference was made under Section 10(1)(D) of the Industrial Dispute Act which is quoted as under:
Whether the relationship of employer and employee is established between the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and Shri Anil Kumar Junior Sports Organiser, a workman of Bokaro Steel Sports and Recreation Council, Bokaro Steel City established by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant? If so, whether not to make regular the services, of Shri Anil Kumar by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to? Finally, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City gave an award in favour of the petitioner herein. Which is quoted as under'
On the basis of above discussed facts, circumstances and materials available on the record, I find and hold that employer and employee relationship exists in between the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and the workman Anil Kumar, I also find and hold that not to regularise the service of the workman Anil Kumar by the management of Bokaro Steel Plant is improper and unjustified As the workman Anil Kumar is entitled to regularisation of his service and all other benefits as indicated in para-13 and 14 hereinabove. The management company is directed to implement the award within two months from the date of its pronouncement
3. It appears that the Management, Bokaro Steel Plant, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 45 of 2002 challenging the award which was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2002 passed by this Hon'ble Court by a speaking order. The Management, Bokaro Steel Plant preferred a L.P.A. No. 341/2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.7.2002 passed by this Court. Thereafter, the Management preferred a S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20343/2002 which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of award having attained finality up till Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Management did not implement the award and ultimately he was constrained to file a representation on 16.12.2002 to implement the award which resulted in reply vide impugned letter dated 1.1.2003 which is sought to be challenged in this Court by which the Management offered the petitioner to appoint at lower grade and different post named as 'Khalasi' in stead on the post he was working. This gave a fresh cause of action to challenge the same in the present writ petition.
The further contention raised by the petitioner is that he is entitled to be regularized against the post on which he was working more so when the award in his favour has attained finality up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. The counsel for the respondents in its reply, has submitted that the post of Junior Sports Organizer was not available and it was on this back ground that the impugned letter was issued on 1.1.2003. He further submits that in their counter affidavit they have also given the option to the petitioner to join the post of Junior Recorder which according to them is of L 5 grade and in a similar scale of pay.
6. I have considered the rival submission and contention raised by the parties. The admitted fact remains that the reference was as to whether the employee and employer relationship exists or not and that has been awarded in favour of the petitioner. The award is specifically based on the reference and the reference also refers the issue as to whether Junior Sports Organizer was a workman of Bokaro Steel Sports & Recreation Council. Once this has been decided in para 10, 13 and 14 of the award by considering all the evidence and once it has been affirmed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, by this Hon'ble Court as well Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would have been appropriate for the Management to implement it then and there.
7. The second round of litigation has been caused due to the defiant attitude of the Management and due to their own conduct when they offered the petitioner the post of Khalasi. Even the post now being offered, as stated by the counsel for the respondent, of Junior Recorder as communicated is for L 5 grade whereas the petitioner was in L 6 grade and is presently working as L-10 grade. As it has been rightly pointed out from the document of respondent No. 6 that the post of Junior Sports Organizer is still in existence and the vacancy is there and it has been annexed in page 9 and 10 of the third supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.
8. Thus, the aforesaid contention also is misleading and false on the face of it. The Management conduct is unfortunate to say the least. It is not a case of charity and or bargain but instead they are duty bound to implement the orders of Court which has attained finality.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter dated 1.11.2003 being in violation of the award, erroneous and illegal is accordingly quashed.
9. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with all consequential benefits affirming once again the award in favour of the petitioner with cost of Rs. 10000/-. The respondent Management is directed to implement the award within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.