AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner claims to be a Union of the workmen of the Respondent No. 2 Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. It is the case of the Petitioner Union that an award dated 9th August, 1996 on a reference u/s 10 of the I.D. Act of the disputes between the Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital and "its workmen C/o Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital Staff Association" was published. It is further the case of the Petitioner Union that under Issues No. 5 & 7 in the said award, directions were issued to the Hospital to lay down a policy; (i) in black and white so that it is clear as to how a particular workman will attain the status of permanent employee and (ii) to fix running pay scales of the employees so that they can get their regular increments and to pay running pay scales to those in other similar Hospitals in Delhi. The grievance of the Petitioner Union is that the Respondent No. 2 Hospital has not complied with the aforesaid part of the award even though there is no challenge thereto. The Petitioner Union claims to have approached the Respondent No. 1 for implementation of the aforesaid part of the award but contends that no action whatsoever has been taken on the said application of the Petitioner Union for implementation of the aforesaid part of the award including by taking action u/s 29 of the I.D. Act. The Petitioner Union seeks mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to initiate proceedings for implementation of the aforesaid part of the award.
Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been completed. Though this writ petition was sometimes listed with certain other writ petitions pertaining to the Hospitals but finding the controversy in the present writ petition to be de hors the other writ petitions, this writ petition has been taken up for hearing today.
The senior counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Hospital has invited attention to the counter affidavit and has contended that while the dispute resulting in the award aforesaid was raised by the "Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital Staff Association", the present writ petition has been filed by "Sunder Lal Jain Hospital Karamchari Union". It is contended that the Petitioner Union is a Union of ex-employees of the Respondent No. 2 Hospital and of certain outsiders and the Respondent No. 2 Hospital has since already arrived at a settlement with its workmen represented by the "Sunder Lal Jain Charitable Hospital Staff Association" and owing to which settlement, the aforesaid part of the award stands implemented.
The counsel for the Petitioner Union has contended that the reference was made way back in the year 1987 and over a period of time, the workmen of the Hospital have re-constituted themselves and the workmen for whose benefit the award aforesaid was made, are now members of the Petitioner Union and as such the Petitioner Union had applied to the Respondent No. 1 for implementation of the award and has filed the present writ petition. He also controverts that the award has been implemented.
The aforesaid disputes cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. It is for the Respondent No. 1 who is stated to have been approached by the Petitioner for implementation of the award, to in accordance with law adjudicate whether the Petitioner Union has any locus to seek implementation of the award or not and also whether the award has been implemented or not and if finds the award to have been not implemented and to have been approached by the appropriate person/party, to in accordance with law implement the award.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
A. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Implementation Officer, Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 20th May, 2011 at 1500 hours.
B The Petitioner Union is directed to file a fresh application for implementation of the award with advance copy to the counsel for the Respondent Hospital on or before 10th May, 2011.
C. The Respondent No. 2 Hospital to also on that date i.e. 20th May, 2011 file its response to the said implementation application.
D. The counsel for the Petitioner Union states that he will be the counsel in the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and all pleadings in this regard can be served on him and all inquiries in this regard can also be served on the Petitioner Union through him.
E. Considering that the matter has remained pending for long, the Assistant Labour Commissioner is directed to dispose of the said application by a reasoned order on or before 30th September, 2011 and if finds the award to have been not implemented and implement able at the instance of the Petitioner Union, to thereafter immediately proceed to implement the award.
No order as to costs.
Copy of this order be given Dasti.