Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9522 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Yadav,Abhishek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
The present petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent nos.3 and 4 to ensure joining of petitioner as per order of the Apex Court in SLP No.5057 of 2014 as well as Contempt Petition Nos.817 of 2018 and 309 of 2016 within a specified period. This Court has taken cognizance of the grievance raised and a detailed order has been passed in the matter on 15.12.2020:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner was employed as workman on daily wage with the respondent-Jal Nigam. The services of the petitioner was retrenched with many other like daily wagers. One Ram Chandra challenged his retrenchment before the Labour Tribunal which was dismissed. The award passed by the Labour Tribunal has been challenged by Ram Chandra in Writ C No. 54570 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 9.12.2013. The respondent- Jal Nigam preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5057 of 2014 against the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ C No. 54570 of 2011 which was disposed of by the Apex Court by judgement and order dated 7.9.2015 on the statement made by respondent-Jal Nigam that the Jal Nigam has decided to take the respondents-workmen on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 7.4.2015 and the list contained therein. The order of the Apex Court is extracted hereinbelow:-
"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has decided to take the respondents-workmen on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 07.04.2015 and list contained therein. Needless to say, the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list contained in office order dated 07.04.2015 which has been filed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list as per the aforesaid office order, they have no grievance.
Recording such concession, the special leave petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
In the list submitted by the respondent-Jal Nigam before the Apex Court which is appended as annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 55. The petitioner was working in Bhadohi and list prepared by the office of Executive Engineer, Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Bhadohi, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 6. The petitioner thereafter approached the Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam, Bhadohi who by letter dated 20.9.2018 requested the Superintending Engineer, Jal Nigam, Mirzapur to give necessary directions to proceed with the joining of petitioner. The Executive Engineer again sent reminder to the Superintending Engineer, Mirzapur on 13.9.2018.
The petitioner alleges that despite the fact that his name finds place in the list of workmen submitted by the Jal Nigam before the Apex Court wherein they have given undertaking to take the workmen on daily wage basis whose name finds place in the list, but till date the respondents has not permitted the petitioner to join and work as daily wager.
Considering the fact that the respondent Jal Nigam has given undertaking before the Apex Court as is evident from the order of the Apex Court extracted hereinabove that the Jal Nigam shall allow the workmen to work on daily wage basis and more than 7 years have passed, the employee is running from pillar to post but the respondent-Jal Nigam has not taken back the petitioner as workman on daily wage basis for the last 7 years, this Court finds appropriate in the present case to direct the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam to appear before this Court in person and explain as to why despite the undertaking given by the Jal Nigam before the Apex Court, the petitioner has not been taken back as workman on daily wage basis. If the respondent-Jal Nigam takes back the petitioner as daily wage employee before the next date fixed, the Managing Director need not appear in person and shall file his personal affidavit explaining as to why the delay has occurred in allowing the petitioner to join.
Put up as fresh on 6.1.2021."
An affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, who is also holding the charge of Managing Director stating that the Contempt Petition Nos.817 of 2018 and 309 of 2016 have already been rejected by the Apex Court on 4.1.2019. The records in that regard have been placed on record alongwith affidavit.
On behalf of the petitioner various arguments have been advanced.
It is, however, admitted on record that petitioner was retrenched from the employment of respondent Corporation in the year 1997. The dispute was brought before this Court and ultimately has been resolved by the Supreme Court in SLP No.5057 of 2014. The only direction issued by the Court was for considering reinstatement of workmen (including the petitioner), depending upon their seniority and requirement of work. Ultimately, the contempt petitions have also been dismissed by holding that there is no deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the Apex Court. Once the Supreme Court has already dismissed the contempt petitions, it would not be open for this Court to entertain petitioner's grievance and to examine the question as to whether orders passed by the Apex Court have been complied with or not.
Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Ashok Kr.