1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5897/2004 Om Prakash Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 29th May, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vimal Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. .... The Assistant Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Sriganganagar terminated the petitioner from service on 1.12.1992. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner raised an industrial dispute that was referred by the appropriate government to the labour court, Sriganganagar for its adjudication. The employer and the workman during pendency of the industrial dispute referred to labour court arrived at an agreement, accordingly, an award dated 22.5.1999 was passed in the terms that no dispute remains between the parties due to a compromise arrived at between them. According to the agreement the petitioner-workman was to be reinstated in service on leaving the back- wages. The respondent-employer did not act upon the agreement, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the labour court to recall the award dated 22.5.1999 but the same was rejected on 31.7.2002. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. This Court by an order dated 7.11.2006 directed the respondents to verify the reasons for not implementing the compromise. After passing of the order aforesaid the Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Sriganganagar appointed the petitioner as Beldar on work-charge basis by an order dated 16.12.2006, however, no reason or justification was placed on record for causing delay in executing the agreement arrived by the parties in pursuant to which the 2 award dated 22.5.1999 was passed. This Court by the order dated 10.5.2007 again directed the respondents to file a specific statement by way of an additional affidavit for causing delay in executing compromise and also to give reasons as to why the appointment under the order dated 16.12.2006 was given to the petitioner in work-charge cadre despite the fact that no appointment on work-charge basis is required to be made after abolition of the Rajasthan Public Works (Building and Roads including Gardens, Irrigation, Water-works, Ayurvedic) Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 in the year 1994. An affidavit sworn in by Sh. C.M. Chouhan, Executive Engineer, PHED, Rural Division, Sriganganagar was accordingly filed with a statement that the compliance of the award was delayed as the matter was under consideration before State Government. It sounds from contents of the affidavit that due to inactions on part of the State, specially the Department of Finance, delay was caused. Counsel for the respondents also shown me the entire record relating to process of execution of the agreement. From examination of record it reveals that the respondent-State, specially the Department of Finance, was sitting tight over the matter or was raising irrelevant objections and that resulted inordinate delay in execution of the agreement. As a matter of fact the matter with regard to execution of the agreement was expedited only after passing of the order dated 7.11.2006 by this Court. The respondents after the order referred above immediately within a period of ten days accorded appointment to the petitioner and this fact itself proves inaction and negligence on part of the respondents in implementing the agreement. The respondents at their own could have implemented the award long back. The entire record establishes it well that the Department of Finance for one or other reason was ignoring compliance of the agreement arrived between the parties. The authorities of the Public Health & Engineering 3 Department wrote number of letters to the Department of Finance to take appropriate action but all the time the matter was deferred for one or other reasons. An agreement arrived between the parties during the course of adjudication of an industrial dispute, as a matter of fact, possess the force of an award passed by the labour court, therefore, the respondents should have acted upon it expeditiously in its true spirit. The petitioner due to inaction on part of the respondents has certainly suffered a great mental agony that is required to be compensated by this Court. Looking to all facts of the case I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for appointment from the date the award was published in accordance with Section 17 of the Act of 1947. In view of it while disposing of this petition for writ the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Beldar from the date the award dated 12.5.1999 was published by the appropriate government under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for actual payment of wages for the period he has not worked with the respondents. The respondents shall make notional fixation of the petitioner's salary from the date of his appointment that is the date of publication of the award concerned. The respondents are saddled with a cost of Rs.10,000/- that is required to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. (GOVIND MATHUR ),J. jgoyal