IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13675 of 2005 Workers of Rajendra Agriculture University as represented by Dainik Betan Bhogi Karamchari Mahasangh through General Secretary of R.A.U. Pusa, Samastipur C/o Room No. 95, Barack No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House, Shahajahan Road, Near UPSC, New Delhi. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Labour, Planning and Training Department, Patna. 2. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Officer of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3. Rajendra Agricultural University through its Registrar, Pusa, P.S. Pusa Dist- Samastipur, Bihar. ……Respondents. ----------- 2. 24.11.2011 Heard Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to S.C.-3 for the State. Though copy of the writ petition has been served on learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Rajendra Agricultural University but nobody appears when the case is taken up. The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the State to refer the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent University to the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court for adjudication of the claim raised by the petitioner Union. In the alternative, prayer is made to regularize them as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex court in its order dated 18.02.1998 passed in S.L.P. No. 18594/94 2 and its analogous cases. Consequently, relief asked for is for quashing the letter dated 24.09.2003 by which the respondent State has declined to sent the dispute for reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 18.02.1998 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the scheme was worked out for regularizing/ absorbing the casual employees who had worked in the respondent University for more than 15 years. The scheme envisaged that 35% of the available vacancies would be filled up by absorbing the eligible casual employees who had worked for more than 15 years and the rest 65% would be filled up through open advertisement in which the left over casual employees who could not be adjusted among 35% vacancies would also be entitled for consideration. It appears from the rejoinder filed by the respondent University before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga, that the stand of the respondent University was that in view of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court casual labourers could not be absorbed either against 35% reserved quota or balance 65% 3 vacancies. The State also has taken a similar view while rejecting prayer for referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication on the erroneous ground that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already given certain directions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the respondent University as well as that of the State is not only erroneous and misplaced but also in the teeth of the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in as much as the parties though are bound by scheme enumerated in the said order, but for its actual implementation, factual aspects have to be gone into which in the present case appears to be disputed. Besides this, there are other aspects also and the same is governed by the relevant Labour/Industrial dispute laws occupying the field which cover the case of the members of the petitioner union. Learned counsel for the State also reiterates the stand of the Government submitting that the matter having been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the decision of the Government not to refer the dispute is justified. Considering the rival contentions and after going 4 through the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 28.02.1998, it is clear that the stand of the respondent university before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Darbhanga, in the letter dated 21.09.2002 is totally erroneous since it has misinterpreted and misread the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The casual employees were directed to be regularized/ absorbed in a particular way. The actual implementation which requires that details in case of each individual who may make a claim has to be gone into. For such an exercise when there is intense dispute, the statute and the existing laws provide for a forum for such adjudication which is the concerned Industrial Tribunal or the competent Labour Court. In that view of the matter, it was obligatory on behalf of the State not to become a party to the lis but act objectively and refer the matter to such Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for adjudication. The State should not unnecessarily take sides or become a judge in a case which would be appropriately dealt with by the competent forum under the relevant statute. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 24.09.2003 5 issued by the Government of Bihar, Labour Training and Planning Department cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The state is directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court, Begusarai for adjudication. Let the same be done within four weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon the respondent No. 1. The writ petition stands allowed. Upon the matter being referred to the Labour Court, Begusarai, the said Court shall also make all endeavours to ensure that there is expeditious disposal of the matter and in any case final orders are passed within a maximum period of nine months, in accordance with law. The concerned Court shall take into consideration that if certain persons are being prejudiced due to the pendency of the case before this Court, no harm is caused to them on this account. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)