Delhi High Court
Vinay Kumar Gupta vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others on 29 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)ILLJ698DEL
Bench: Devendra Kumar Jain, Y.K. Sabharwal
JUDGMENT
1. The Award in favor of the petitioner/workman was made by the Industrial Tribunal on August 30, 1988 holding that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. the date of dismissal, namely, May 27, 1981 with continuity in service and full back wages. The award was published in Delhi Gazette on March 10, 1988 and became enforceable w.e.f. April 10, 1988. The application of management, Respondents 3 and 4 for setting aside the Award was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on September 23, 1988. lnspire of request of the petitioner he was not reinstated. The petitioner filed a complaint before Respondents 1 and 2 dated March 3, 1989 under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requesting that the management be directed to reinstate him and pay him the dues immediately failing which the prosecution of the management may be launched at an early date. The writ petition filed by the management against the Award and the order declining to set-side the Award (CWP 679/89) was dismissed by this Court on August 1, 1989. Inspite of the aforesaid state of affairs, the Award was not implemented by Respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 1 and 2 also did not take any action against the management under Section 29 of the Act.
2. This writ petition has been adjourned from time to time. We may notice that the admitted position is that the implementation of the Award has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Vasudev, however, submits that SLP was filed in Supreme Court immediately after the decision of this court but the same has not come up for hearing. It will also be useful to notice that the management has not filed any reply in the writ petition. As already noticed above Mr. Vasudev admits that there is no order of stay of implementation of the Award. We may, however, notice that Mr. Birdi, Labour Commissioner has in his affidavit dated March 28, 1995 stated that the Government was intimated by the Management that vide orders dated December 17, 1990, Honourable Supreme Court had been pleased to grant stay in the above matter. We, however, need not go into this question since now the admitted position is that no order of stay has been passed by the Supreme Court. This Court by order dated August 24, 1995 had directed that in case the respondents are unable to obtain orders of stay from the Supreme Court against the implementation of the Award before the next date of hearing, namely, today, this Court will have no option except to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition since the case has been adjourned from time to time on the request of the Respondents.
3. From the facts noticed above, it is evident that there is no impediment in implementation of the Award and on failure to implement it the respondents are obliged to decide the complaint of the petitioner filed under Section 29 of the Act. Since the matter has already been over delayed and by now the Award is nearly 8 years old, we direct Respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith decide the application of the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and proceed in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. A copy of this order be given dasty to counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.