Bhagwan Bhatuta Koli vs Ministry of Health and Others

B.N. Srikrishna, J.—This is a writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India which impugns an order dated 19th December, 1989 made by the Labour Court, Dhule, in Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1989 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The facts of this writ petition more than amply demonstrate the callousness displayed by public authorities in the implementation of orders of Court.

The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition are: The Petitioner was an employee of the Zilla Parishad, Dhule, posted as a clerk in the Primary Health Centre at Dhule. The Petitioner was working as a Clerk in the service of the Zilla Parishad from or about 7-7-1984. On 1-4-1988 the Petitioner''s services were terminated. He filed Complaint (ULP) No. 80 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Dhule and sought reinstatement in service. By an order dated 19th May, 1989 the Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner''s service was illegal and that by removing him from service, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule and the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khapar, Dhule, had engaged in unfair labour practice. The said Officers, who were respondents to the complaint, were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back-wages. The Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Dhule. (Second Respondent herein), filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 83 of 1989 challenging the order of the Labour Court. This Revision Application was dismissed by the order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, made on 16-11-1989. Inspite of these orders, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad (Second Respondent) did not care to reinstate the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, filed an Application u/s 48(1) of the Act, Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1989, complaining that the Respondents to the said application had disobeyed the binding order of the Labour Court. The Respondent to the said Criminal Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1989 were the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, the B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti, Akkalkuva and the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khapar, District Dhule. This application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19th December, 1989. Hence this writ petition.

It is unfortunate that, though this matter was adjourned from time to time to find out whether the operative order of the Labour Court had been complied with or not, there is no response from the Respondents as none of them appeared before this Court and the matter was called out for hearing. Mr. Kochar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has stated that he is not in touch with his client and he cannot make a statement as to whether the petitioner has been reinstated or not.

I have been taken through the impugned order and I find it somewhat curious and incomprehensible. The facts on record show that, soon after the order in Complaint (ULP) No. 80 of 1988, on 29th May, 1989 i.e. within ten days of the order, the Petitioner had applied to the Zilla Parishad for being taken on duty. Nothing was done in this regard. The Revision Application (ULP) No. 83 of 1989 of the Zilla Parishad was dismissed on 16-11-1989. Even thereafter, nothing was done by the Zilla Parishad and its officers. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner had approached the Labour Officer of the B.D.O. requesting him that he be reinstated in service. The Labour Court has adversely commented upon this, by saying that the petitioner had failed to approach the Chief Executive Officer or the B.D.O. Panchayat Samiti, Akkalkuva and, therefore, merely sending letter by registered post was not sufficient to get reinstatement. Strangely, there is a finding of the Labour Court that the Petitioner had made no efforts to join duty with the competent authority and that he was at fault in not joining duty after getting the order in his favour from the Labour Court and that the only remedy to the petitioner was to approach the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad and obtain an order of reinstatement and other reliefs.

To say the least, the Labour Court''s impugned order is a complete misdirection in law. The learned Judge of the Labour Court (curiously, because it was the same learned Judge who directed reinstatement) seems to have ignored the fact that the operative order dated 19th May, 1989 was directed against the Respondents and directed them to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and full back wages. If the operative order was against the present Respondents 2 to 4, it was primarily their obligation to implement the order. They failed to do so. The learned Judge of the Labour Court castigated the registered letter sent to the Zilla Parishad and the Petitioner''s attempt to report to the Labour Officer and B.D.O., as not amounting to reporting for work. The petitioner workman was found to have been wrongfully dismissed from service and, his wrongful dismissal having been set aside, the present Respondents 2 to 4 were directed by an order of Competent Court to reinstate him in service. I am neither satisfied that they had done everything in their power to comply with the order of the Court, failing which they would be answerable in law, nor am I satisfied that they had done anything to discharge this heavy obligation upon them. The order of the Labour Court virtually allows the wrongdoers to escape the consequence of their deliberate inaction and is, therefore, unjust, erroneous and liable to set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Labour Court dated 19th December, 1989, is hereby quashed and set aside. It would be sufficient compliance with the operative order against the Respondents if they reinstate the petitioner (if not already reinstated in service) with continuity, not later than 1st July, 1995 and pay him full back-wages from the date of dismissal (1-4-1988) till the date of reinstatement. In order to obviate any further dispute, the Petitioner shall report to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule, (Second respondent), not later than 1st July, 1995. Upon the Petitioner''s reporting there, the Second Respondent shall give him a letter reinstating him in service and deploy him at any place where his services are required.

Back-wages shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today failing which they should attract simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

Respondents to pay the costs of writ petition quantified at Rs. 750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only).

Rule made accordingly absolute.

Certified copy expedited.