JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Goel, J.
1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for the grant of following reliefs: –
(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of this case and pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the matter and issue appropriate directions.
(ii) That the impugned Annexure P/5 and P/6 passed with a mala fide intention, being discriminatory, and passed against the basic provisions of law may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That the respondents be directed to re-engage the petitioners back into service as a Chowkidar, as per their seniority and on the available work.
(iv) That the respondents be directed to count the seniority of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment i.e. July 24, 1990 and February 1, 1991 respectively.
(v) That the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners all arrears of wages w.e.f. May 28, 1998 on which date the learned Labour Court directed the respondents to re-engage the petitioners forthwith, which award has now been affirmed by this Hon’ble Court vide Annexure P/4.
(vi) That any other which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
(vii) That the respondents be saddled with exemplary costs in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter and damages to be paid to the petitioners.
2. Facts as they emerge from the record of this case are, that the petitioners were engaged by the respondents as daily rated Chowkidars for manning their taken over Units under the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951
3. It may be appropriate to observe in this behalf that respondent No. 1- Corporation in law is empowered to take over the Unit financed by it when it is satisfied that such Unit is committing persistent default. In the instant case also petitioner No. 1 was engaged on February 1, 1991 whereas petitioner No. 2 was engaged on June 14, 1990. According to respondents, petitioner No. 1 (sic) was engaged from February 1, 1991 to July 14, 1992 and then from January 1, 2002 to: February 12, 2004. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was engaged from June 14, 1990 to July 26, 1992 and again from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2004.
4. Thereafter impugned Annexure P-5 was issued to petitioner No. 2 and Annexure P-6 was issued to petitioner No. 1. Stand of the respondent-Corporation in this behalf is that since their services are no more required,. therefore, those are being dispensed with.’ Along with these Annexures, one month’s wages as well as compensation etc., was also tendered to both of them. When both the petitioners refused to accept it, Annexures P-5. and P-6 were sent through registered post. Both these Annexures have been challenged by the petitioners.
5. When put to notice, stand of the respondents is that the writ petition is not maintainable and they have given the details of earlier litigation between the parties in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 739 of 1998 and 741 of 1998. According to them there is no vacancy of Chowkidar where the petitioners could have been deployed as such their services were terminated in accordance with law as well as the award of the Labour Court.
6. Further stand of the respondents is that so far as the claim for the payment of wages to both the petitioners for the period May 28, 1998 to January 1, 2000 is concerned, action has been initiated by them when they preferred claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of Act No. 14 of 1947 (Industrial Disputes Act), before the Labour Court and it is pending disposal there. Plea of the discrimination is denied by the respondents and according to them im-pugned Annexures P-5 and Annexure P-6 are in accordance with law, therefore, call for no interference.
7. Another fact that also emerges from the record of this case is, that when services of the petitioners were terminated earlier, two separate references were made by the Government to the Labour Court, in case of petitioner No. 1 reference number is 42 of 1993 and in case of petitioner No. 2 reference number is 43 of 1993. Both references were disposed of in same terms, but by separate orders by the Labour Court. Operative para in both the cases being identical and the relief granted by the Labour Court being also identical, paragraph No. 10 in one of the cases is extracted hereinbelow:-
“Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, I hold that the petitioner remained in service of the respondent right from July 24, 1990 to August 27, 1992. His services were terminated by the respondent without the compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated in job. Further more, the petitioner proved that his juniors have been retained. The principle of natural justice requires that the first come last go has not been complied with by the respondent, so the petitioner shall be reinstated by the respondent as chowkidar. However, it is not proved by the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed anywhere after his termination. Therefore, on such account back wages as claimed cannot be allowed in favour of the petitioner. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government of its publication in the H.P. Rajpatra in accordance with law within one month from the receipt of the copy of the award.”
8. Against this award of the Labour Court, respondent-Corporation filed two writ petitions being Civil Writ Petition No. 739 of 1998 in the case of Vidhi Singh petitioner and Civil Writ Petition No. 741 of 1998 in case of Hem Raj petitioner. During the pendency of these writ petitions on the applications of the Corporation, stay was refused as no case was made out and consequently its applications were dismissed. Identical applications in both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Since orders passed on both the applications in both the cases were identical, one such order is being extracted hereinbelow:-
” August 4, 1999 Present: Mr. Kuldip Singh, advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Devyani Sharma, advocate for respondent No. 1.
CMP No. 1592 of 1998.
Since we have not granted any stay of the award of the Labour Court and there is no impediment for getting the award executed in accordance with law, no further orders are required to be passed on this application. The application is dismissed for that reason with liberty to avail of the remedy for executing the award in accordance with law.
CMP No. 1408 of 1998.
There is no case made out by the petitioner-Corporation for granting the stay in its favour. The application is rejected.
Sd/- D. Raju, C.J.
Sd/- L.S. Panta, Judge.”
9. Finally when these two cases came up for consideration, those were dismissed by a Common judgment dated December 1, 2003.
10. In the aforesaid background Shri Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the action of the respondents is not only illegal, contrary to law, but in fact is an attempt on their part to take revenge on his clients. They are being deprived of their livelihood after a gap of more than twelve years, that too, without there being any legal sanction behind it. He went on to submit that orders impugned Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 are void ab initio being without jurisdiction and are, therefore, liable to be struck down. He also pointed out that this is an unfair labour practice adopted by the respondents, thus may be declared as such.
11. All these pleas have been controverted by Sh. Kanwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. His submission in this case is that this Court may not go into all these questions because according to him petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy under the Industrial Law. Alternatively he submitted that engagement of the petitioners depends upon requirement to man the taken over Units by his client, as such with the transfer of such taken over Units, need to employ ceases, therefore, it is not possible for his client to continue engaging daily rated Chowkidars employed by it. Accordingly he urged that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and in no case this Court need to go into all these questions.
12. After hearing (sic) learned counsel for the parties, we feel that this writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that petitioners can approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the redressal of their grievances, if any. In case negotiations fail, in such a situation, law enables the petitioners to claim reference for adjudication of all the claims set out in this writ petition to the Labour Court, where all the claims of the parties would be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence that may be produced by the parties. How Annexures P-5 and P-6 were not in conformity with the provisions of law could not be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners. Only submission urged was, that they (the petitioners) are being deprived of their job without there being any legal sanction behind it. All admissible dues in our view appear to have been tendered, if still some grievances subsist, petitioners can have recourse to law. So far as claim of petitioners for salary from the date of the award in 1998 till their re-engagement by the respondents, w.e.f. January 1, 2002 is concerned, matter is pending before the Labour Court. We are not expressing any opinion on the aspect of this case as it will be gone into by an authority having jurisdiction in law to adjudicate upon the same.
13. It is not the case of the petitioners that work is available elsewhere for manning the other Units taken over subsequent to the issuance of Annexures P-5 and P-6. If this was the ground reality, respondent No. 1 could have been asked to look into this matter. Nor anything in this behalf was brought to our notice at the time of hearing.
14. No other point is urged.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merits in this writ petition and thus it is dismissed, but subject to following observations:
That the petitioners can always approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act challenging Annexures P-5 and P-6. Thereafter on the matter being taken up for conciliation if it is sorted out, nothing will survive. In case negotiations fail, petitioners can always claim reference to the Labour: Court. In such a situation and in case the case is referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the Competent Authority, it will be adjudicated upon independently and without being influenced by anything said in this judgment which is meant for the limited purpose of the disposal of this writ petition. So far as claim of the petitioners for wages after the decision of the Labour Court in 1998 till their re-engagement up to January 1, 2002 is concerned, it will be again adjudicated upon by the Labour Court where it is pending, in accordance with law. In the event of petitioners approaching Conciliation Officer he shall conclude the proceedings within six weeks of the petitioners approaching him positively and if it is necessary by taking up day to day proceedings. Similarly in case of failure report being submitted and then reference being claimed by the petitioners, Competent Authority shall process the cases of the petitioners within six weeks after the receipt of the failure report and shall then refer the matter to the Labour Court within this period. Time frame for both, i. e. the Conciliation Officer, as well as Competent Authority is pre-emptory to be carried out by them.
16. Costs on the parties.
CMP No. 407 of 2004
17. No orders, in view of the orders passed in the main matter.