Rajiv Kumar vs State of Haryana

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the impugned communications of even date, i.e. 11.9.1992 (Annexure P-3 and P-4), petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents, reducing the daily wage amount of the petitioners from Rs. 37.15/- to Rs. 31/-. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as Assistant Pump Operators with the respondent department on daily wages basis. They were paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 37.75/- per day. When their wages were sought to be reduced by the respondent department, petitioners approached the learned Labour Court by moving applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''the I.D. Act'' for short). After hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that action of the respondent-department, reducing the wages of the petitioners was not justified. Applications of the petitioners were allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 1.6.1992 (Annexure P-1) and 6.9.1991 (Annexure P-2).

It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that the orders passed by the learned Labour Court were not challenged by the respondents and the same became final between the parties. In spite of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court vide Annexures P-1 and P-2, the impugned notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 were issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 4, whereby wages of the petitioners were again sought to be reduced. Reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners relying upon the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Since the wages of the petitioners were still being sought to be reduced despite the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court, it became a compulsive necessity for the petitioners to approach this Court. Hence this writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued and reduction in wages was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.9.1992. When nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 16.12.1992. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the learned Labour Court has passed the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 and the same have become final between the parties, action of the respondent authorities issuing the impugned notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 was totally without jurisdiction. He further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition since services of petitioner No. 1 had been regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 and he felt satisfied, an application bearing C.M. No. 11751 of 2003 was moved seeking withdrawal of the writ petition qua petitioner No. 1. Notice of this application was issued and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was allowed vide order dated 30.5.2003. Thus, the present writ petition survives only on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 11. He concluded by submitting that since the action of the respondents was in violation of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court vide Annexures P-1 and P-2, such an action was not sustainable in law. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 by allowing the present writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition was filed only against notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 and no final order was passed by any of the competent authorities, because of which the present writ petition was premature and is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than, one which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record that none of the any respondents put in appearance, despite service on 16.12.1992, when the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. No written statement has been filed during the pendency of the writ petition, despite the lapse of long time of more than 20 years. In this view of the matter, the contents of the writ petition as well as averments taken therein, have gone unrebutted on record and the same deserve to be accepted as it is. No reason is forthcoming as to why any written statement could not be filed on behalf of the respondents. When the case was taken up for hearing on 30.9.1992, following order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court.

Notice of motion for 16.12.1992. The reduction in ages is stayed till further orders.

When the case was again taken up on 16.12.1992, the Division Bench of this Court admitted the case by passing the following order:-

No one appears on behalf of respondents despite service.

Admitted.

It is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioners that the orders passed by the learned Labour Court Annexures P-1 and P-2 allowing the applications of the petitioners u/s 33C(2) of I.D. Act have become final between the parties, as the respondent-department did not challenge these orders any further. Once it is so, the respondent authorities were under legal obligation to comply with the orders passed by the learned Labour Court. However, instead of ensuring the meticulous compliance of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court, the respondents proceeded without jurisdiction, while issuing the impugned notices Annexures P-3 ad P-4, seeking reduction in wages of the petitioners. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that action of the respondent authorities was wholly without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained.

Before arriving at a just conclusion, the learned Labour Court, in its order Annexure P-2, recorded the following cogent findings:-

No where the management in its reply has averred that, requisite notice was given to the applicant employees regarding proposed reduction in wages being paid to them. It is well settled law that any change in the condition of service without notice will not have any affect on the employees. Then, management has not produced before this court any order vide which daily wages were reduced from Rs. 37.75 ps. to Rs. 31/- per day. I have thus no hesitation to hold that act of the management reducing the rates of daily wages which will being paid to the applicant is arbitrary and illegal.

Consequently, applicants claim application is allowed and management is ordered to pay wages to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 37.75 ps. Per day. Arrears accordingly be paid to the applicants within one months. If any applicant has received the wages offered to him then the difference in wages (if any amount has been deducted) be paid to him within one month. While allowing applicants application for injunction it is ordered that management shall not reduce rates of daily wages payable to the applicants otherwise than in due course of time.

The respondent authorities were at liberty to challenge the above said orders passed by the learned Labour Court. However, once the same were not challenged and have become final between the parties, the respondents were duty bound to implement the orders passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The respondent authorities had no right to find fault with the orders passed by the learned Labour Court, while issuing the impugned notices Annexures P-3 and P-4. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that impugned action of the respondent authorities was arbitrary on the face of it and the same cannot be sustained.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that impugned notices of even date i.e. dated 11.9.1992 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) were patently illegal and the same are hereby ordered to be set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are held entitled to receive the daily wages at the rate of Rs. 37.75/-, during the relevant period. It is so said, because neither learned counsel for the petitioners, nor learned counsel for the State are in a position to point out anything about the latest factual aspect of the matter.

Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued hereinabove, the instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as costs.