Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 496 (DEL)

SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. SECRETARY, LABOUR

2003-05-19

MUKUL MUDGAL

body2003
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) NO reply has been filed in spite of opportunity granted on 25th April, 2003. This is a matter which has already been delayed and deserves therefore to be disposed of on the existing pleadings. ( 2 ) THE writ petition avers that the petitioner filed a complaint dated 22nd October, 2001 under Section 2 (ra) and Section 25u of the industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) with the respondent No. 1, secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to prosecute the respondent No. 2, Municipal corporation of Delhi for non-implementation of the award dated 26th July, 2000 rendered in ID 3/97. It is not in dispute that the Award dated 26th July, 2000 has still not been implemented upto date. ( 3 ) THE writ petition, therefore, makes the following prayers:- "i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. l to take a decision on the complaint dated 22. 10. 2001 by the Petitioner under Section 2 (ra) read with 25u of the Act and to prosecute the Respondent No. 2. II. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 2 to implement the award dated 26. 7. 2000 in I. D. No. 3/97 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. III delhi. " ( 4 ) IN I. D. No. 3/97, the award was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 2, MCD on 26th July, 2000. Thereafter since the award was not implemented the petitioner sent a reminder dated 26th July, 2001 to the Commissioner mcd to implement the award. On not getting any response to the said reminder a complaint under Section 2 (ra) of the Industrial Disputes act read with Section 25 (U) was made to the respondent No. 1. The said Section 2 (ra) and section 25 (U) of the Act read as follows:- 2 (RA) "unfair labour practice" means any of the practices. " specified in the fifth Schedule; 25 (U) Penalty for commutting unfair labour practices. Any person who commits any unfair labour practice shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. " specified in the fifth Schedule; 25 (U) Penalty for commutting unfair labour practices. Any person who commits any unfair labour practice shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. " ( 5 ) IT is also clear that Section 2 (ra) defines an unfair labour practice as that prescribed in the Fifth Schedule and Item No. 13 of the fifth Schedule reads as under: "failure to implement award, settlement or agreement. " ( 6 ) SINCE the complaint dated 22nd October, 2001 filed by the petitioner was not decided for more than one and a half year the present writ petition was filed. ( 7 ) THE mandate of Section 25 (U) read with section 2 (ra) and Item B, Fifth Schedule is clear and is intended to ensure that the unfair labour practice not to implement award is dealt with firmly and any recalcitrance on this count is to be visited with penal consequences. ( 8 ) THUS the award dated 26th July, 2000 has not been implemented for more than two and a half years and the complaint has been pending for more tnan one and a half years. The dispute raised by the petitioner on 6th June, 1994 fructified into an award only on 26th July, 2000. Even thereafter the battle to implement the award has continued for about 3 years. ( 9 ) IT is indeed surprising that the respondent no. 2 has failed to implement the award for almost 3 years. Industrial disputes are meant to be settled/decided expeditiously so as to promote industrial peace and harmony and an instrumentality of the State like the respondent No. 2 cannot wilfully and in a wanton manner violate the law. ( 10 ) SIMILARLY the respondent No. 1, Secretary, labour and Labour Commissioner must implement the provisions of the Act with despatch and not drag its feet. ( 11 ) IN my view if an award is not implemented within six months of its coming into force, a complaint would lie under Section 2 (ra) read with Section 25 (U) of the Act and such a complaint must be dealt with and disposed of within six months thereafter so as to give teeth and effect to the provisions of the Act. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the following mandamus is issued: THE respondent No. 2 is directed to implement the award not later than 15th july, 2003. If the award is not implemented within this period, the respondent No. 1 will initiate appropriate action by 15th August, 2003 under Section 25 (U) of the Act and ensure that such proceedings under Section 25 (U) are thereafter concluded within six months thereafter.