Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1160 (RAJ)

Deputy Conservator of Forest v. Bharat Lal Meena

2001-07-26

S.K.KESHOTE

body2001
Honble KESHOTE, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). Admit. Mr. Amin Ali has already put appearance for the contesting respondent. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned it is neither necessary nor proper party to this petition, its name is deleted. Office to put an endorsement to that extent in the cause title. The matter is complete. (3). On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. (4). In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.7.98 of the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.59/96. Under the impugned order in this petition the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 8.1.98 of the petitioner was came to be rejected. On 8.1.98 the Labour Court, Bharatpur has closed the right of the petitioner to file the reply to the statement of claim in the matter. (5). The facts of the case and the grounds raised to challenge this order in the petition need not be given in detail as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent workman has no objection in case the petitioners are given one more opportunity to file the reply to the statement of claim and contest the reference on merits before the Labour Court on payment of cost to the respondent. (6). The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute re-the termination of his services by the petitioner and that has been referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that (1) notice of this reference was received by the petitioners on 25.7.96 with the copy of statement of claim of the respondent workman; (2) proposals were sent to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur vide letter No.6117 dated 9.8.1996 for appointment of Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge; (3) the District Collector, Bharatpur was requested by letter dt.9.8.1996 for appointment of Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge; (3) the District Collector, Bharatpur was requested by letter dt. 9.8.1996 for appointment of panel lawyer. The Range Officer, Bharatpur was instructed by letter dated 12.8.1996 to appear in the Court; (4) Ashok Verma was appointed as panel lawyer by the District Collector vide his order dated 16.8.1996 and the Chief Conservator of Forest by his order dated 6.9.1996 appointed the Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge. (7). 9.8.1996 for appointment of panel lawyer. The Range Officer, Bharatpur was instructed by letter dated 12.8.1996 to appear in the Court; (4) Ashok Verma was appointed as panel lawyer by the District Collector vide his order dated 16.8.1996 and the Chief Conservator of Forest by his order dated 6.9.1996 appointed the Range Officer, Gangapur City as Officer Incharge. (7). From 6.9.96 to 8.1.98 more than sufficient time was given to the petitioners and once an opportunity has also been given on cost to file the reply to the statement of claim. The same has not been filed. Having gona through the contents of the petition and the order impugned therein I am satisfied that the petitioner have failed to make out any ground to grant them any further indulgence in the matter. (8). On merits the petitioners have no case but as the counsel for the contesting respondent workman has given his consent for giving the petitioners one more opportunity to contest the matter on merits the petition may not be dismissed. (9). Learned counsel for the respondent contesting workman submitted that the costs are awarded under two heads. One is the cost for allowing the petitioners an opportunity to contest the reference on merits and secondly the cost of this petition. It is submitted that the respondent workman is a poor person. He has been removed from the service by the petitioner. He is a jobless person and has no money to contest this litigation but after receipt of the notice of this petition as it is the matter pertains to his livelihood he has to engage an Advocate to contest the matter. In this litigation he has spent Rs.3500/- towards the expenses thereof. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has submitted that the workman has paid to him an amount of Rs.3500/- for providing him his professional services in this matter. So far as cost for the grant of the liberty to the petitioners to contest the reference on merits is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent workman leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. (10). Mr. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General of the State submitted that no cost under the head of litigation expenses for this petition be awarded to the respondent workman. (10). Mr. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General of the State submitted that no cost under the head of litigation expenses for this petition be awarded to the respondent workman. So far as the quantum of the cost is concerned to be awarded for giving opportunity to the petitioners to context the reference on merits, Mr. Rafiq leave the matter also to the discretion of the Court. (11). Mr. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the cost of this petition may not be awarded to the respondent workman otherwise it will result in additional financial burden on the State exchequer. he submits that the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been enacted by the Parliament and State Government has set a budged of huge amount to provide the free legal services to the poor persons in the State. The respondent workman if it would have really been a poor person should have availed of that right has not been availed of and only on this statement made by his counsel, the State of Rajasthan may not be burdened with this cost of litigation of this petition in favour of the respondent workman. In alternate Mr. Rafiq submits that the statement made by the counsel for the respondent workman that the workman is a poor person is not correct. (12). I find sufficient merits and substance in this connection of Mr. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan. (13). The State of Rajasthan undisputedly is providing free legal services to the poor persons. It is not a charity which it is given to the poor litigants but it is their legal right to get free legal services from the Government as conferred to them under the Act aforestated. The respondent workman is stated to be a poor person by his counsel. Looking to the facts of this case, the nature of his employment and termination of services prima facie he appears to be a poor person and eligible to get the free legal services in the matter from the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee in case he would have applied for the same. Learned counsel for the respondent workman himself has admitted the workman to be a poor person meaning thereby not in a position to pay this amount of Rs.3500/- as his fees. Learned counsel for the respondent workman himself has admitted the workman to be a poor person meaning thereby not in a position to pay this amount of Rs.3500/- as his fees. He may have advised him or make aware of him of his this right to have free legal services. In case where he approached to the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee and has not been given free legal services in the matter then certainly it could have been accepted that the respondent workman is not a poor person and in that case a justification with him to engage his own Advocate. In this case I find sufficient justification with the action of the respondent workman to engage the Advocate and contest the matter. It is unfortunate for this poor person the beneficiaries of the Act, 1987 that despite of spending huge amount by the State they are not getting any benefit. (14). There is all the possibility that this poor person may not aware of his right of free legal services and that may be the reason that he has not approached to the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee. But if he is not aware of his legal right he may not alone be at fault. Fault if is there it may also be elsewhere. The Advocate to some extent may not be at fault to charge his professional fees to provide his services to a litigant who approaches to him. It is not the case of the petitioners that under the Advocates Act or some other Act any ceiling on the fees of the Advocate is laid down or provided. In the absence of such a provision in the Advocates Act or other Actor under the Act, 1987, the Advocate may not be at fault to charge his own fees. (15). The poor person is also no option where he has to make a choice for the Advocate to pay the price for his services to be taken. But we can see, realise the pitiable condition of this poor person who has to arrange this heavy sum of Rs.3500/- for the litigation expenses. For the person of the category to which this respondent workman belongs Rs.3500/- is not a small sum. It may be very difficult for him to arrange a sum of Rs.3500/-. But we can see, realise the pitiable condition of this poor person who has to arrange this heavy sum of Rs.3500/- for the litigation expenses. For the person of the category to which this respondent workman belongs Rs.3500/- is not a small sum. It may be very difficult for him to arrange a sum of Rs.3500/-. There are all the possibility that this poor person would have arranged this amount by borrowing the same from some of his relation or other persons and he may have to pay the interest thereon at a very high rate. (16). It is the duty of both the Bench and the Bar and the legal experts to make known to the litigant of this category of their legal rights of free legal services. I have my own reservation that possibly in this case this poor workman would not have been made known of his this legal right by his counsel. In case it would have done and in my opinion it should not have been done certainly this poor person would have approa- ched to the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee and would have been relieved of this heavy financial burden which he is possibly to carry for years to come. (17). The members of the Bar owe a duty to the poor litigants to make them know of their right to have the free legal services. In our present adversary system in the country on receipt of the notice from the Court, a litigant approaches to the Advocate and that is the first stage and there it is expected for the members of the Bar to make known of him of his this legal right of free legal services. In case the members of the Bar are not cooperating then this class of the poor persons the beneficiaries of the socio economic and benevolent piece of this legislation, the Act, 1987 will have no effect and force. If the beneficiaries of this Act are not getting the benefits of the same then this very purpose and object of enacting this Act shall be frustrated. It is not only a duty which the members of the Bar owe but pious obligation to make all endeavour to see that this class of the litigants are not unnecessarily put to this burden of the expenses of litigation. (18). It is not only a duty which the members of the Bar owe but pious obligation to make all endeavour to see that this class of the litigants are not unnecessarily put to this burden of the expenses of litigation. (18). Litigation in the Court which is clearly borne out from the facts of this case heavily to costs. This is a matter which needs to be gone in deep and to give out the guidelines for the effective implementation of this Act, 1987 but I do not consider it to be a fit case to undertake that exercise in it. In future this Court may have many more occasions to consider, decide and give guidelines in respect of the matters regarding the free legal services to the poor persons. Leaving apart the fact that prima facie I am satisfied that the respondent workman is a poor person, he would have been entitled for the free legal services and it is a fit case to award the cost in favour of this litigant but still I do not consider it to be a fit case to put additional financial burden on the State Govt. It has already set a huge amount in the budged for providing free legal services to the poor persons and if for the reasons to which it may not be 100% correct these persons are not getting the benefit it cannot be further burdened financially. So the claim made for the cost of this litigation by the learned counsel for the repentant workman deserves no acceptance and under this head no cost is awarded. (19). It is a matter of an industrial dispute regarding the termination of services of the respondent workman which has been referred to the Labour Court and that matter is pending. The Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal has been constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the object and purpose to provide speedy and cheaper remedy to the workmen. With this object and purpose when this Labour court and Industrial Disputes has been constituted under the statute it is not only expected but it is the duty of the Govt. to see that its officers make all endeavour and effort that expeditiously the matters are being decided. With this object and purpose when this Labour court and Industrial Disputes has been constituted under the statute it is not only expected but it is the duty of the Govt. to see that its officers make all endeavour and effort that expeditiously the matters are being decided. But it is unfortunate that in the State its officers are acting contrary to the real desire of the framers of the act, 1947. One of the reason for the delay in decision of the cases is this total non cooperative attitude of the officers of the State of Rajasthan. My experience on Bench for the last more than 7 years goes to show that the officers of the impersonal machinery govt. of Rajasthan considered it to be their insult to appear before the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal. They do not bother for the cases which are pending against the State of Rajasthan before the Labour Court and the Industrial tribunal and they awake only when the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal passed adverse orders. Not only they awake but make all huge and cry against those orders passed by the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal by filing a writ petition in this Court. This what my experience goes is clearly borne out from the facts of this case. (20). It is not in dispute that the notice of the Reference with the Statement of claim of the workman was received by the petitioners on 25.7.96 but till 8.1.98 the petitioners have not cared to file the reply to the statement of claim. More than, what it was necessary indulgence has been granted by the Labour Court to the petitioner in this case. Once the opportunity to file the reply to the statement of claim have been granted on payment of cost but even then these petitioners have not bothered, cared and concerned in the matter and the Labour Court has left with no option to order to close their right to file the reply to the statement of claim. (21). At this stage, these petitioners awake and are making all the huge and cry in this petition as if the Court has only at fault and they are very bonafide, diligent or the honest towards their duties. In the facts of this case what better than that the Labour Court did could have done in the case. (21). At this stage, these petitioners awake and are making all the huge and cry in this petition as if the Court has only at fault and they are very bonafide, diligent or the honest towards their duties. In the facts of this case what better than that the Labour Court did could have done in the case. It is a difference matter that the respondents counsel has agreed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners to contest the reference otherwise, I do not find any case in their favour. (22). It is a clear case of negligence, carelessness and totally unmindful of their duties which they owe to the employer and the public of the officers of the State of Rajasthan, an impersonal machinery. The petitioners have about sixteen months period to file their reply to statement of claim which suggestive of the fact that they are totally unconcerned, negligent, careless and unmindful of their duties which they owe to their employer and the public. (23). Because of this their negligence, carelessness and unmindful of their duties which they owe to their employer and the public, the State Government would have been heavily financially burden. (24). That is the only one aspect. If we go by the other aspect this application for recalling of the order dt.8.1.98 has been filed by the petitioners after 7 months and 20 days. For this inordinate delay also no explanation has been furnished by the petitioners. This application was came to be rejected by the Labour Court on 29.7.98 and this petition has been filed by the petitioners in the Court on 20.7.99. That is also after considerable inordinate delay. So, if we go by these facts it is clear that at all the stages the officers of the State of Rajasthan have shown and proceeded negligently, carelessly and totally unmindful of their duties which they owe to their employer and the public. (25). They applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 10.8.98 and the copy was given to them on 18.8.98 and still they have not chosen to file this petition at an early date. (25). They applied for the certified copy of the impugned order on 10.8.98 and the copy was given to them on 18.8.98 and still they have not chosen to file this petition at an early date. From these facts one thing is clear that these officers of the impersonal machinery State of Rajasthan are only concerned and interested for their rights regarding pay packages, perks and other facilities but seldom to their duties which they owe to the public at large. It persists amongst the officers of the Government for the obvious reason that they are not accountable for their negligence, carelessness, etc. I am confident that they may not act in the manner and fashion in which what they are doing. Unless a permanent accountability cell if it is already not there is established by the State of Rajasthan and headed by independent person, the House of the State of Rajasthan is not going to be corrected. (26). That is not the only case with these officers before the Court subordinate or Tribunals or Labour Court or other Authorities but in this Court also. (27). The State of Rajasthan is the biggest litigation in the Courts and much more higher degree of discipline, duties and responsibility is expected from its officers. The decision in this Reference has been delayed or there is delay in decision thereof because of the negligence, carelessness, unmindful and unconcerned of their duties which these officers owe to their employer and the public. The claim of the cost may be the counsel for the respondent workman to give the right to the petitioners to contest the reference on merits is justified. (28). Looking to the corruption as said by the public amongst the officers prevailing in the country there may be another reason and possibility that these officers are acting in this manner and fashion with consideration or without consideration that is not the matter of inquiry here. To extent the favour to the workman by remaining totally unconcerned in the matter what whey desire to do to give an easy assail to the respondent workman in the matter. Naturally when they have not contested the case of respondent workman there will not be any contest, no evidence from the side of the petitioners in the reference and the Labour Court may not have any option except to accept the case of the workman. Naturally when they have not contested the case of respondent workman there will not be any contest, no evidence from the side of the petitioners in the reference and the Labour Court may not have any option except to accept the case of the workman. Either way it is a danger to State of Rajasthan within its own and if the necessary effective steps are not taken and if the State of Rajasthan felt contended by giving the guidelines etc. papers or constitute the Committee here and there for administrative reforms etc. it will not serve the purpose. The committees are constituted for administrative reforms and the committees may do the good work but implementation is more important and if it is not there than the position will not be improved. If we go by our experience after our independence the graph of the negligence, carelessness, unmindful and concerned of their duties which they owe to their employer and the public and corruption amongst the officers is increasing day to day. That is happening despite of constitution of hundreds of the committees by the State of Rajasthan for administrative reforms or other reforms etc. It gives clear indication that it is not a real and effective solution. (29). Be that as it may, it is a matter for consideration of the State Government. But this court at the same time cannot be silent spectator of all these happenings amongst the officers of the State of Rajasthan, impersonal machinery. Ultimately accountability is not there for these officers and for their negligence, carelessness etc. they are not booked and appropriately punished, the days may not be far of where the courts re to take this responsibility and in as appropriate case to punish adequately defaulting, erring, negligent and careless officers. (30). The question only remains for consideration is what amount is to be awarded as the cost of this petition to the respondent workman. Though, I appreciate fairness and humanity of both the counsel for the parties to leave this matter at the discretion of this Court but it would have been better for them to decide themselves amicably what amount is to be awarded by the Court as costs. To award the the cost is the discretion of the Court. Though, I appreciate fairness and humanity of both the counsel for the parties to leave this matter at the discretion of this Court but it would have been better for them to decide themselves amicably what amount is to be awarded by the Court as costs. To award the the cost is the discretion of the Court. That does not mean and taken as if the Court is only to award a taken cost or the cost for the sake of the cost. While awarding the cost of the litigation the Court has to consider manifold aspects including the agony of the litigant and secondly what amount of the expenses he has incurred in prosecuting the litigation. That is herein the reference before the Labour Court. (31). It is very very difficult for the Court to award the real cost for the humiliation, agony and suffering to which this litigant would have been subjected because of this delay in the adjudication of the reference. But on its own, the Court has to reasonably compensate for all that. The hearing of the reference has been deferred by officers of the State of Rajasthan by adopting this methodology for more than 3 years and 6 months by now. Looking to this period of delay of deferation of the adjudication in this reference, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will met by awarding Rs.5,000/- as cost to the workman to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the reference on the merits. (32). In the result, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dt. 29.7.98 Annex.1 of the Labour Court Bharatpur in LCR No.59/96 is quashed and set aside subject to the condition of the payment of Rs.5000/- as cost to the contesting workman. The petitioners are directed to pay this amount of cost personally to the workman in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by Demand Draft in his name within a period of 15 weeks from today. In case, this amount of the cost is not paid by the petitioners within this period from today, this writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court. However, where this amount of cost is paid, the Labour Court to proceed in the matter as per schedule hereinbelow:- 1. In case, this amount of the cost is not paid by the petitioners within this period from today, this writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court. However, where this amount of cost is paid, the Labour Court to proceed in the matter as per schedule hereinbelow:- 1. The petitioners shall file the reply to the statement of claim of the respondent workman on or before 25.11.2001. 2. The respondent workman shall complete his evidence within a period of one month from the date of the filing of the reply to the statement of claim. 3. The petitioners shall complete their evidence within one month from the date of the closer of the evidence of the workman. 4. The argument in the matter is to be completed and award to be delivered by the Labour Court within 2 months from the closer of the evidence of the petitioners. 5. No assistance whatsoever shall be provided to either of the parties to the reference for summoning or procuring attendance of their witnesses. To be made it clear that the petitioners and the workman shall be produce their witnesses in the Labour Court without any assistance of the Labour Court.