Gauhati High Court
Purna Chandra Guha And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)1GLR173
Author: I.A. Ansari
Bench: I.A. Ansari
JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari J.
1. In consequence of a dispute, which arose between the Management of Indian Airlines Ltd. and its causal workmen, the Central Government vide order No. L-11012/07/96-II(Coal-1) dated 15.4.1997, made the following reference :-
"Whether the demand by Sh. Paddeswar Baishya and others (as given below) causal labourers of Indian Airlines Limited for regularisation of their employment by the management is legal and justified, if no, to what relief are these workmen entitled?"
2. The above reference being No. 7(c) of 1997 was disposed of by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, by award dated 27.12.1999, with the direction, which run as under :
"In view of my aforesaid consideration, I am of the opinion that the Indian Airlines authority is not justified in not regularising the services of the causal workmen raising this industrial dispute. It is, therefore, ordered that management should prepare a list of casual workmen on seniority basis and regularise their services in a phase manner in regular vacancies when arises. The management is also further directed not to make a fresh recruitment on any regular vacancy, when arises and should fill up the same from the causal workmen on seniority basis. With this direction, this reference is awarded in favour of workmen."
3. In pursuance of the award, dated 27.12.1999, aforementioned, the management published, on 10.5.2000, a seniority list of the casual workmen concerned who are all petitioners in the present writ petition. This seniority list is placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. While publishing the list aforementioned, the management sought for objections, if any, from the workmen concerned. The workmen accordingly submitted their objections on 12.6.2000. As the workmen concerned, i.e., the writ petitioners have not received any information regarding the result of the objections raised by them, they have, now approached this Court, with the help of the present writ application, seeking, inter alia, directions to the respondents, in general, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in particular, namely, M/s Indian Airlines Limited, to regularise the services of the petitioners in keeping with their respective seniority and in terms of the award, dated 27.12.1999, aforementioned.
4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have contested this case claiming, inter alia, that they have no rules for regularisation of the services of casual workmen and in the absence of any such rules, no direction for regularisation of services of casual workmen can be passed by any tribunal and that this Court cannot be made to act as an executing Court for the award, in question, of the learned Tribunal.
5. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. S. Sankar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. I have also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional CGSC, appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents.
6. It is, no doubt, true that this Court cannot be used as an executing Court, but there can be no dispute that in an appropriate case, when facts and circumstances of the case so justify, a Writ Court may, if legal rights of a person needs to be enforced, issue appropriate directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This position of law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. In view of the fact that feeling aggrieved by the seniority list aforementioned, the petitioners have raised objections thereto, the petitioners are, undoubtedly, entitled to a minimum legal right of consideration of their objections by the management concerned. This position too is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents, in general, and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in particular, to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioners with reference to the seniority list (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and dispose of the same by making speaking order/orders within a period of three months from today. So far as the question relating to regularisation of the services of the petitioners is concerned, the same has been dealt with and decided by the award aforementioned. For enforcing the directions given by an Industrial Tribunal, provisions have been made in the Industrial Disputes Act itself. Hence, the petitioners are left at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the law if the directions contained in the award aforementioned have not, according to the writ petitioners, been carried out or implemented by the respondents concerned.
9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.