JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. At the very outset, Mr. B.S, Lal, learned A.A.G submitted that since the matter pertains to Deoghar therefore he is representing the State of Jharkhand and is accordingly making submissions.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The concerned workmen invoked the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act for regularization/permanent appointment of their services. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the concerned workmen were working on daily wages under the Executive Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation Department), Irrigation Division, Deoghar, Forty Six (46) such workmen pleaded that they had been appointed in the year 1980 – 83 in various capacities as chowkidar, night guards, typists, tracers, helpers etc. on daily wages. Their further case was that they continuously rendered their services as permanent staff but they were not given the benefit of the status of permanent employees nor were they being paid as per the principles of equal pay for equal work.
4. Consequently, these workmen invoked the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, which ultimately culminated in the matter being referred for adjudication before the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bhagalpur where it was registered as Reference Case No. 14/87. From the facts pleaded in the other case filed by the workmen i.e. CWJC No. 4803 of 1997. which has been heard along with this case and which has been filed for implementation of the Award dated 20.12.1995, it appears that during the pendency of the aforementioned reference case, the Executive Engineer terminated the services of the workmen with effect from 01.06.1995 without taking any leave from the learned Presiding Officer. That order was passed on 29.04.1995 and it came to be challenged in the same reference case before the Labour Court at Bhagalpur. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court held the order to be in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Finally, the Reference itself was taken up and it was heard at length whereafter the learned Presiding Officer passed his Award on 20.12.1995 holding that the 46 concerned workmen who contested the Reference were eligible to become permanent with effect from one year after their initial appointment as daily rated workmen and they were also entitled to all facilities admissible to a Government servant.
5. The aforementioned Award is the subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 6138 of 1996 which has been argued by Mr. B.S. Lal, learned A.A.G. while in the other Writ Application argued by Mr. Jai Shanker Burnwal, the prayer made on behalf of the workmen is for implementation of the said Award.
6. Upon perusal of the Award, it is apparent that the learned Presiding Officer has looked into and weighed evidences and documents. After having done so, he has come to a positive finding based on those evidences and has also considered the depositions made in Court to the effect that the concerned workmen had been working continuously not only since the dates of their respective appointments but also much beyond the period of 240 days. One Kripa Kant Thakur, Executive Engineer being M.W. -1 stated and accepted before the Labour Court that the workmen had worked continuously right from the dates of their respective appointment as daily wagers. He has also accepted that there is Notification to the effect that a daily wage earner working continuously for more than 240 days in a year becomes entitled to be treated as a permanent employee. He has also admitted before the Labour Court that three such employees had already been made permanent and they were Haldhar Mandal, Raghuvir Yadav and Ganga Mahto. It was further stated by him that he at his own level, had no jurisdiction to give the status of permanency to daily wage earners and that such power vests exclusively in the State Government.
7. The findings recorded by the Labour Court which are relevant to the issue are paragraphs 12 and 13. From the aforementioned paragraphs, it is apparent that the Labour Court correctly proceeded to answer the reference as to whether the concerned workmen should be given all benefits at par with permanent employees and whether they should be given the status of permanency. At paragraph – 13 of the Award, the Labour Court came to the finding that after having looked into all evidences and exhibits, it was established beyond that the concerned workmen had been working under the Management continuously since after their appointments. The Labour Court took into consideration the evidence of Kripa Kant, Thakur and recorded that the said Executive Engineer had made a specific admission in relation to the continuous working of the concerned workmen as daily wagers who were paid only daily wages although as per Government Notification they were entitled to be treated as permanent employees upon completion of 240 days. In the same paragraph, he also refers to the preferential treatment meted out to the aforesaid three persons and finally comes to the conclusion that the demand of the concerned workmen to make them permanent and treat as such together with appropriate bonus attached with such permanent employees was justifiably proper and therefore on the basis of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, they should be given permanency together with all benefits arising out of confirmation of such status.
8. These are findings based on evidences and they cannot be allowed to be upset by a Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 cannot upset pure findings of fact. What the Labour Court has done are findings based on evidences brought on record before him in a validity constituted proceedings. The High Court under Article 226 cannot substitute those findings nor can it reappraise evidences as if it were a Court of original jurisdiction. Even otherwise, from the facts pleaded, it is evident that these workmen had been rendering their services continuously without any blemish and break right from the dates of their respective appointments and therefore, even on grounds of equity, they certainly did deserve to be given the status of permanency and monetary benefits following the principles of equal pay for equal work.
9. Mr. B.S. Lal, learned AAG could not point out any perversity with the Award. This Court is also of the opinion that the Award is neither mala fide nor perverse from any angle what so ever. The Labour Court having been vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters which are referred to it by the Government under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act has painstakingly undertaken that task and has given the Award in a well reasoned manner.
10. For the reasons stated above, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the State Respondents have not been above to make out any case for interference by this Court. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by them being CWJC No. 6138 of 1996 is dismissed.
11. Consequently, the other Writ Petition namely CWJC No. 4803 of 1997. is allowed and the Respondents are directed to forthwith implement the Award.
12. After the aforementioned order had been dictated, Mr. Jai Shanker Burnwal pointed out that although operation of the Award was not stayed, the Respondents refused to implement the Award which had led to filing of a Contempt Application. Thereafter, the Respondents partially implemented the Award by giving the status of work charged employees to the concerned workmen but did not give them permanent status with consequential benefits as had been directed by the Award. If this be factually correct, then in view of judgment that has been delivered today, the respondents shall undo the wrong and strictly abide by the Award of the Labour Court on all counts.