CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Faridabad .....Petitioner VERSUS Smt.Sudha Rani and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) with a grievance that interpretation, as given to the award dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P-6) is legally not sound and accordingly be quashed. The prayer made by the petitioner apparently is unreasonable. The facts noticed in brief would reveal the unfair and uncharitable stand of the petitioner. Having entered into compromise with the respondent- workman before the Labour Court, the petitioner is making laborious CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: efforts to escape responsibility and to back out of the agreement. Smt.Sudha Rani was engaged as a Daily wage paid worker by the Department of Telecom, Government of India. Her selection is stated to be without following due process and at the fixed wages. Plea is that the Government had decided to outsource the petty jobs to the private contractors and entered into contract for supply of labour for various labour oriented works (unskilled jobs). Thus, the services of respondent No.1, Smt.Sudha Rani, came to be regulated through a contract. The petitioner-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited has been constituted and is incorporated as Company under the Companies Act, 1856 with effect from 1.10.2000. Respondent No.1-workman came to be disengaged on 24.5.2001, against which she served a demand notice. The conciliation proceedings took place and reference of the dispute was made to the Labour Court on 21.10.2002. The workman filed the statement of claim on 12.8.2003. The petitioner filed reply to the same. While the dispute was pending before the Labour Court, the matter was taken up by Labour Court in Lok Adalat on 18.7.2008. Parties reached a compromise and on the basis thereof, respondent No.1 withdrew the reference of the dispute. It is clearly recorded in the order that the workman made a statement that the management had agreed to provide her work on the same terms and conditions on which she was already working at the time of her disengagement but without any back wages. The workman had, thus, forgone the back wages and the Management agreed to the terms as mentioned. The reference was accordingly disposed of by the Lok Adalat. Subsequently, the respondent-workman was given employment CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: under the contract. She had to again approach the Labour Court for clarifying the terms of the agreement. The Labour Court thereafter had heard the parties concerned and made extensive reference to the agreement reached between the parties. Reference is made to the admission made by Sh.S.L.Aggarwal, A.G.M. (Legal), Telephone Exchange, Faridabad, that Sudha Rani was directly working with the management. The Labour Court thereafter perused the file of ID No.211/02 containing dozen of documents showing that there was a direct relationship between the management and the workman. The Court has made reference to the affidavit filed by the management to the effect that no document is lying with the management regarding the service rendered by respondent No.1 with it. The Court, however, noticed that the workman had filed the said documents after getting them from the Department under the Right to Information Act and, thus, the management had agreed to provide job to the workman. As per the Labour Court, Sudha Rani was to be provided job as per the terms and conditions existing prior to her termination and this was a bilateral promise made before the Tribunal on consensus. The Labour Court has expressed surprise that contractor engaged the workman. The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that this action did not amount to compliance of the award passed by the Tribunal dated 18.7.2008. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner- management, which is repeated before me also to the effect that it is nowhere mentioned that the workman will be provided job directly by the management and not through the contractor, was also noticed by the Labour Court. The Court has then reproduced the entire order CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: and has noticed that the back wages have no concern with the job provided through the contractor on outsourcing. The Labour Court thereafter noticed that language of the order was clear that Sudha Rani would be entitled to her job directly from the management. It is rightly noticed that Government policy was very well in the notice of Sh.S.L.Aggarwal, AGM, at the time when he made the statement before the Lok Adalat. The Labour Court thereafter noticed that this action apparently is to prevent any legal consequences, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is only to avoid consequences that the petitioner-management had provided a job through the contractor. The said action of the management was referred to as an eye wash. A direction, therefore, was issued to the petitioner-management to honour and implement the award passed by the Tribunal on 18.7.2008. I find no justification on the part of the petitioner- management to file the present writ petition or challenge the award, once the management had agreed consciously before the Labour Court to provide a job on the basis of which the respondent-workman had acted and had withdrawn the reference. It would now not legally be possible for the petitioner-management to back out from the agreement. I am, thus, not at all convinced with the stand taken by the petitioner-management and would dismiss the petition with costs assessed at ` 10,000/-. November 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE