Kashi Singh vs Principal Secretary,Labour Department

M.N. Bhandari, J.—It is invariably seen that a poor person not only forced to go for litigation but even if an order is passed favourable to him, the department takes years together for its implementation. A person is forced to run from pillar to post for that purposes. It is happening because nobody in government takes cognizance of the grievance of the poor person, rather matters are either kept pending without action or file is dealt with several objections. The case in hand is of similar nature. The petitioner approached Labour Court for adjudication of his claim for pay scale of the post of Surveyor and the Labour Court answered the reference favourable to him. The direction was given to the State Government to allow minimum of the pay scale of the post of Surveyor since 11.12.1987. The award was passed by the Labour Court on 06.08.2008. The State Government took a decision not to challenge the award thus it became final. The petitioner was not extended benefits as awarded by the Labour Court thus he was forced to prefer this writ petition. It is moreso when the period of more than 5 years had already passed in between. The petitioner had even preferred application u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") to seek prosecution. It is quite surprising that Labour Commissioner did not decide the application aforesaid, rather the department sent a letter indicating that permission of the prosecution sanction may not be accorded. The letter aforesaid is of 08.08.2011 and period of more than 2 years have passed even thereafter. The Labour Commissioner did not proceed with the matter on assurance for implementation of the award but it has not been implemented as yet. This Court thus issued an order on 09.11.2013 to cause appearance of Deputy Secretary, PWD, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, who issued a letter at Annexure-3 dated 08.08.2011 so also the Labour Commissioner to find out as to why application u/s 29 of the Act was not decided. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Deputy Secretary, PWD, Government of Rajasthan is present. Learned counsel appearing for PWD department submits that matter was sent for financial sanction to implement the award but on account of objection by finance department, the benefits could not be extended. It is mainly for want of qualification of the post of Surveyor. The matter was sent to the Personnel Department also thus it remained under active consideration of the departments concerned. The delay in grant of benefits is thus bonafide.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

It is quite unfortunate that even after award in favour of employee, he is not getting fruits due to typical working of State Government. After passing of the award, the department took a decision not to challenge it. The decision must have been taken based on reasoning and finding the award to be just and proper or otherwise the department could have challenged the award of Labour Court. After taking decision not to challenge the award, it was expected from the department to implement it at the earliest. The award dated 06.08.2008 has not yet been implemented, though it is year 2014.

Learned counsel for respondents was asked to seek implementation of the award forthwith however again time is sought which has been denied by this Court. It is quite surprising that even after a clear direction of the Labour Court to award minimum of the pay scale to the employee w.e.f. 11.12.1983, the benefit has not been extended on one or other ground.

Learned counsel for respondents has referred Para 6 of the impugned award to show that while considering case for grant of minimum of the pay scale, the department was given liberty to look into his service record as to whether it is satisfactory or not, apart from fitness. In view of the above, case of the petitioner was considered and finding him to be ineligible of the post of Surveyor, benefits were not extended.

When learned counsel for respondents was asked to see final direction in Para 7 having no ambiguity or liberty to the department to deny benefits based on service record or any other aspect, thus denial of such benefits cannot be said to be proper. Moreso when challenge to the award was not made if outcome of the consideration is denial of benefits. It is also surprising that even benefits have not been denied to the petitioner on account of eligibility. The direction in Para 6 of the award is not to see his eligibility but service record as to whether it is satisfactory or not to assess the fitness which is otherwise a requirement of Rule 3 of Work-charge Service Rules of 1964. The final direction in the award is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

Perusal of the direction above keeps no room of doubt for extension of benefits. In the background above, I find that department has unnecessarily delayed implementation of the award thus has to be settled with cost apart from direction to extend benefits to the petitioner with interest. A poor person cannot be made to suffer in the hands of the officer of the department or the Finance department which can keep the issue pending for 5 years together without final decision.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the direction to the respondents to implement the award within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner would be entitled to the interest on arrears @12% p.a. for the delayed period in the hands of the respondents apart from cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be recovered from those defaulting officer who failed to pursue the case for implementation of the award. The public exchequer should not be made to suffer on that count, rather cost is to be recovered from the pocket of the officer concerned who did not take prompt action inasmuch as period in between is not of few months or one or two but now it is of more than 5 years.

Before parting with the judgment herein a direction is issued to the State Government to look into the award as and when it is passed by the Labour Court/Tribunal. If they take decision not to challenge it, then take appropriate action for implementation without delay so as to avoid application u/s 29 of the Act. Copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to issue general direction to avoid unnecessary delay in implementation of the award and multiplication of the litigation on that count. In case of default, the burden should not be come on the public exchequer but the responsibility of the officer should be fixed with consequential action, which includes even recovery of the cost or interest, if became payable due to delay for implementation of the order. The Labour Commissioner is also directed to expedite the hearing of the application u/s 29 of the Act either by himself or by the Additional Commissioner, as the case may be. If the department fails to produce copy of the interim order, then delay may not be caused to proceed with and decide application u/s 29 of the Act.