1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7686/2005 Birji v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: MAY 21, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri J.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. Shri Satish Purohit, Addl. Govt. counsel. BY THE COURT : 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to implement the award dated 18.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, in Case No. (L.C.R.) 163/93. 3. The State Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Bharatpur as to whether the retrenchment order of workman, Birji, vide order dated 12.8.1992 was valid and justified and if it is not, for what relief, the workman is entitled. 2 4. The work-man petitioner filed statement of claim before the Labour Court, wherein he contended that he was appointed as ward boy on 1.5.1985 and completed 240 days during the period from 13.8.1991 to 12.8.1992 and his services have been retrenched in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court, Bharatpur, vide its award dated 18.12.1995 held that retrenchment of work- man Birji S/o Shri Ramchandra was illegal and unjustified and directed the management to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages. The award was published by Labour Court vide notification dated 29.7.1996. However, the award was not complied with, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation before the Director, Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to take him on duty and pay arrears of salary on 21.4.1998 but he was not taken on duty. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Labour Commissioner u/s 29 of the I.D. Act, to initiate the prosecution proceedings against the management on 14.7.2003 but no action was taken on that application. In these circumstances, the petitioner was compelled 3 to file the present writ petition for implement of the award. 5. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed reply to the writ petition wherein their main contention is that since the respondent No.2 has challenged the award of Labour Court in this Hon'ble Court, therefore, its implement could not be cone. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that writ petition filed by the respondent No.2, Dy. Chief Medical & Health Officer i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.111/97 challenging the award of Labour Court dated 18.12.1995, has also been dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 13.3.2008 but still the compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court has not been made by the respondents. 7. The learned Government counsel admitted this fact and further contended that as per information furnished to him, the respondents have not filed any Special Appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment dated 13.3.2008 and he assures that now the award passed by the Labour Court will be complied with as soon as 4 possible. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The un-disputed facts are that the workman petitioner challenged the retrenchment order before the Labour Court and the Labour Court set aside the termination order of the petitioner and directed the respondents to reinstate him on his post with back wages. The award was challenged by the State Government by way of Writ Petition No.111/1997 which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2008. 10. In these circumstance, there is no option for the respondents except to comply with the award passed by the Labour Court. It is very surprising that the award was passed in the year 1995 and no interim stay order was passed in Writ Petition No.111/97 but still the award was not complied with, the writ petition was dismissed way back on 13.3.2008 and as per statement of the learned Government counsel, no appeal has been preferred against this order but still the award has not been complied with so far. In these circumstances, I find this case to be a fit one to issue necessary directions to the respondents to comply with 5 the award forthwith. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the award dated 18.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, forthwith, but not later than a period of two months from the date of submission of copy of this order. The Government counsel will also inform the respondents to comply with this order. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/