Full Text
Translation output
\
%L5.O9.201L
Present: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal for the petitioner.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat for the respondent/MCD.
+W.P.(C) No. 6845/2OLO
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent
MCD to implement the Award. The petitioner also seeks directions to direct respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the complaint dated 12.10.2009 filed by the petitioner under
Section 2 (ra) read with 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act to prosecute respondent No. 2 on their failure to implement the
Award. Reply/counter affidavit has not been filed by either of the respondents.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat, counsel appearing for the respondent/MCD submits that further time be given to her to find out as to whether respondent No. 2 has challenged the said
Award or not.
In the present petition limited direction is being sought by the petitioner for the implementation of the Award dated
+I
2011:DHC:16405
\
13.8.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal thereby directing respondent No. 2 to regularize the petitioner on the post of Mali w.e.f. 1.4.1989 as per the regularization policy of the respondent management in a phased manner programme. The said Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal became enforceable w.e.f. 23.0L.2009. To seek enforcement of the
Award the petitioner sent a legal notice to respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 1-OthJanuary, 2009 but still the Award was not implemented by respondent No.2. ?t" to the non- implementation of the said Award the petitioner then filed a complaint under Section 2 (ra) read with item No. L3 of the V
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act punishable under
Section 25 U of the Industrial Disputes Act but no action on the said complaint of the petitioner has been taken by the office of respondent No. l-.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances respondent No. 2 is directed to implement the said Award within a period of one month from the date of this order. This direction shall, however, be subject to respondent No. 2 having not challenged the said
Award so far till date. It is further directed that if the MCD fails
T to implement the Award within the said period then respondent
No. L shall initiate action on the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 2 (ra) read with item No. L3 of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act punishable under Section 25 U of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
With the above directions the present petition is disposed of.
September L5, 20ll rkr
KAILASH GAMBHI& J
\
?
Present: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal for the petitioner.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat for the respondent/MCD.
+W.P.(C) No. 6845/2OLO
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent
MCD to implement the Award. The petitioner also seeks directions to direct respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the complaint dated 12.10.2009 filed by the petitioner under
Section 2 (ra) read with 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act to prosecute respondent No. 2 on their failure to implement the
Award. Reply/counter affidavit has not been filed by either of the respondents.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat, counsel appearing for the respondent/MCD submits that further time be given to her to find out as to whether respondent No. 2 has challenged the said
Award or not.
In the present petition limited direction is being sought by the petitioner for the implementation of the Award dated
+I
2011:DHC:16405
\
13.8.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal thereby directing respondent No. 2 to regularize the petitioner on the post of Mali w.e.f. 1.4.1989 as per the regularization policy of the respondent management in a phased manner programme. The said Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal became enforceable w.e.f. 23.0L.2009. To seek enforcement of the
Award the petitioner sent a legal notice to respondent No. 2 vide notice dated 1-OthJanuary, 2009 but still the Award was not implemented by respondent No.2. ?t" to the non- implementation of the said Award the petitioner then filed a complaint under Section 2 (ra) read with item No. L3 of the V
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act punishable under
Section 25 U of the Industrial Disputes Act but no action on the said complaint of the petitioner has been taken by the office of respondent No. l-.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances respondent No. 2 is directed to implement the said Award within a period of one month from the date of this order. This direction shall, however, be subject to respondent No. 2 having not challenged the said
Award so far till date. It is further directed that if the MCD fails
T to implement the Award within the said period then respondent
No. L shall initiate action on the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 2 (ra) read with item No. L3 of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act punishable under Section 25 U of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
With the above directions the present petition is disposed of.
September L5, 20ll rkr
KAILASH GAMBHI& J
\
?
JUDGMENT