Badri Singh vs State of Bihar and Others

A.K. Ganguly, J.—Today learned Counsel for the State submits that the file in connection with this case is misplaced, and as such he is not in a position to produce any letter of the Petitioner by which he declined to accept the amount which was awarded in his favour by way of back wages by the tribunal. Learned Counsel refers Annexures-4 and 6 in order to contend that on the basis of those letters it is clear the Petitioner declined to accept the amount which was awarded by the tribunal by way of back wages.

However, facts of the case shortly put are: the Petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 15.1.1973 on the post of Mixture Operator on Muster Roll (Daily Wages), by the then Executive Engineer, Saran Canal Division, Gandak Project Department, Maharajganj, and according to the Petitioner he had continuously worked on the said post.

Thereafter, the Petitioner was retrenched on 1.3.1975 by the Department under the instructions of the Government, although the Petitioner continuously worked for more than 240 days. On that issue a dispute was raised and the matter was referred to u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government of Bihar to the tribunal on the following issues:

Whether the termination of service of Sri Badri Singh, Mixture Operator from 1.3.75 without any notice is justified? If not whether the workmen is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.

On the said issue, an adjudication took place and after such adjudication, the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Muzaffarpur gave an award with the findings that the termination of the Petitioner is not justified and the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and benefit for the entire period. The said order was passed on 20th February, 1993.

It is nobody''s case that the said award was challenged by the State Government at any point of time. It, however, appears from Annexures-4 and 6 that the Petitioner offered to give-up the benefit of back wages which was granted to him by the tribunal, if he is immediately reinstated in service in terms of the said award. It appears also from Annexures-4 and 6 that after the said award was made, the Petitioner found himself helpless totally as the same was not implemented. He was suffering from starvation and financial distress. In order to obtain reinstatement, in terms of the award, the Petitioner gave-up his right to get the back wages under the award. This shows how helpless are the worker in the hands of the State which is supposedly the welfare State and is committed to the principle of social justice. It is very shocking that in the instant case the dispute has been referred to by the State. Thereafter, the award has been passed by the tribunal. Such award has not been challenged by the State. Therefore, the said award is binding on the State. Even then State is not taking any step to implement the award On the other hand, because of such delay in implementation of the award the poor workman (Petitioner herein) is compelled to give-up a part of his claim under the said award.

This Court has asked the counsel for the Respondent repeatedly whether any order has been passed by the State in compliance with the Tribunal''s award for reinstating the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has failed to produce any such order nor any such order has been disclosed in its affidavit. It appears from the affidavit filed by the State especially in para-14 that the Petitioner was engaged again on daily wages basis from 26.6.95 to 25.10.99 during the Kharif season of 1995. Thereafter, he was removed after the Kharif season is over.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, and in my view quite rightly, that the same engagement is not reinstatement in terms of the award. The same is a kind of general engagement for a limited period in favour of several retrenched workers in whose favour there is no award. Such engagement on seasonal basis, as per averment made in para-14 of the counter affidavit is obviously not the reinstatement in terms of the award.

Therefore, the award which was passed on 20th February, 1993 has still today not been implemented by the State. It is expected that the State will act in such a manner by which rule of law is maintained. The basic requirement of the Rule of Law is that an award of the tribunal, unless set aside by the higher court, should be implemented especially when the said award is passed against the State on whose instance reference was made. But it appears that the State is totally unconcerned with its obligation to maintain rule of law. The victim of such cases are obviously the poor people like the Petitioner.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that in a case like this no purpose will be served by asking the Petitioner to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for initiating prosecution against the State, since in this case, the State is defaulter.

So, in exercise of this Court''s powers under Article-226 and on equitable consideration this Court directs that the Petitioner must be reinstated in service in terms of the said award within a period of fifteen days from today. The Petitioner might have given-up his claim for back wages, but the salary and the wages which is available to the post in which Petitioner was working prior to the termination must be made available to him from the date of award till such reinstatement. Such payment be made to the Petitioner after deducting the amount, if any, received by the Petitioner as a seasonal worker on any subsequent engagement after the date of award.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

(1) The Petitioner must be reinstated in service in terms of the award within the period mentioned above;

(2) All payment on daily wages basis from the date of award till reinstatement of the Petitioner in terms of the award, after deducting the amount, if any, paid by way of seasonal engagement after the award, be paid within a period of three months from today;

(3) After his reinstatement, the Petitioner should be paid daily wages on the basis he was being paid prior to his termination.

This writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above.