Market Committee, Faridabad vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad

S.S. Nijjar. J.—This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated 21.4.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court").

The petitioner is a Market Committee created under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the workman" was appointed as Peon with the petitioner-committee on ad hoc basis on 1.4.1982. On 16.8.1986, the petitioner served a one month notice on the workman for terminating his services, in view of resolution No. 2 dated 6.8.1986. This notice was given to fill up the post by calling the candidates through the Employment Exchange. The workman challenged the notice in Civil Court at Faridabad which was dismissed on 20.4.1989. The workman thereafter filed a revision petition in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to seek appropriate remedy. Therafter the workman raised the industrial dispute by reference No. 58 of 1992. The Labour Court has held that at the time when the services of the workman were terminated, he had completed 240 days. It has also been noticed that some show cause notices were issued to the workman regarding absence from duties and dereliction of duties. But these acts had not been made the basis of the dismissal. The Labour Court has further held that in view of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days, it was necessary for the Management to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Labour Court has ordered the reinstatement of the workman with back wages alongwith the benefit of continuity of service. Since there was a dispute as to whether, in the meantime, the workman had been gainfully employed, the Labour Court has given the management liberty to take the necessary plea to the effect that the workman had been gainfully employed, in case an application is filed by the workman u/s 33-C(2) of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the workman having challenged the order of termination by way of filing a civil suit could not have raised the industrial dispute. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Employees Union (Regd.) v. State of Haryana 2001(2) S.C.T. 377. This judgment is of no assistance to the case pleaded by the petitioner. In that case, the workman had filed a civil suit which was subsequently withdrawn. The Writ Petition was sought to be filed after the interim relief had been rejected by the Civil Court. Furthermore, in that case at the time of the withdrawal of the suit, no permission was sought to file the Writ Petition. In the present case, Mr. Jain has made available to this Court a copy of the judgment passed in the civil suit being case No. 464 of 1986. A perusal of the same shows that it was a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the written statement filed by the management, a preliminary objection was raised, namely, that suit was barred for want of statutory notice u/s 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The plea was also raised that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction after coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act. A number of issues were framed by the Civil Court. Issue No. 2 relevant for the decision of this case is as follows :-

"2) Whether the statutory notice as required under Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 has been served upon the defendant, if so effect thereof ? OPD"

The Civil Court dealt with the aforesaid issue as a Preliminary issue, on the basis that the finding on this issue would decide the case. The Civil Court noticed the provisions of Section 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The trial court came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable as the necessary notice had not been served u/s 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Therefore, the plaint was returned for compliance with the Section. Against this judgment, the workman filed Civil Revision Petition i.e. CR No. 1180 of 1989. This Civil Revision was, however, withdrawn on 24.7.1991. The Revision Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to seek apropri-ate remedy.

Afore, stated facts make it abundantly clear that the workman was given permission to raise the industrial dispute if he was, otherwise, entitled to under law. In furtherance of this order passed by this Court, the workman made a demand notice which culminated in the reference of the industrial dispute which had been decided by the Labour Court.

A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the Management pleaded before the Labour Court that the Market Committee is not an "industry" and, therefore, tried to avoid the claim of the workman even before the Labour Court. The net result is that the workman was first defeated in the Civil Court by taking a technical plea that the necessary notice was not given u/s 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. Thereafter, the claim of the workman was sought to be defeated on a plea that the Market Committee is not an "industry". It has been held by the Labour Court that this plea has been taken in spite of the judgment in the case of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ballhongal v. Ashok Harikui and others 2000(4) SCT 674 (SC) : ILR 1998 1053, where the Agricultural Produce Market Committee has directly been held to be "industry". When the Management did not succeed in its efforts to defeat the claim of the workman? they have resorted to filing the present writ petition. The end result is that the workman is out of service since 6.8.1986. Inspite of the fact that at the time when the petition was admitted, the operation of the award has not been stayed, yet the workman has not been reinstated till date. I am of the considered opinion that the workman was perfectly justified in seeking the reference of the industrial dispute on the basis of the observations made by this Court in the order passed in C.R. No. 1180 of 1989 on 24.7.1991. Market Committees are set up under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act. They are performing the function which would, otherwise, be performed by a Department of the Government. The managements of these Market Committees are expected to behave like model employers. They are not permitted to behave like private industrialists and do every possible act to exploit the labour only for earning the highest possible profits. The behaviour of this Market Committee is not that of model employer. Every effort has been made to frustrate the effort of the poor workman to seek justice. Such attitude of the employer has to be deprecated by the Court.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition which is wholly devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

Petition dismissed