R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) BY this judgment, I dispose of two civil writ petitions No. 8042 of 1994 titled 'the Management of The Panipat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer and Anr. ' and C. W. P. No. 9284 of 1995 titled 'distillery Kamgar Sangathan v. The Presiding Officer and Anr; as in both the writ petitions common question of law and facts are involved.
(2.) FIRSTLY coming to pleadings of writ petition No. 8042 of 1994 which has been filed by the Management of M/s Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (Distillery Unit), Panipat, through its Director under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the respondents for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the award dated 23. 2. 1994 Annexure P. 3 and order dated 21. 9. 94 Annexure P. 4 passed by respondent No. l, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 2, the General Secretary of the Distillary Kamgar Sanghathan made a charter of demand from the petitioner Management vide charter of demand and claimed that the persons mentioned in Annexure-A attached with the demand notice be regularised and difference of equal wages to regular working employees should also be paid to them. On receipt of the demand, the petitioner Management contested the claims. Thereafter, the matter was referred to respondent No. 1 for adjudication who passed the award Annexure P. 3, vide which it was directed to management to treat all the petitioners as regular employees and further it was held that they are entitled to get difference between the pay to the confirmed employees of the factory. After the passing of the award Annexure P. 3 dated 23. 2. 94, which was published in the gazette on 31. 5. 94, the Labour Court passed another order Annexure P. 4 which could not be made as the Labour Court functus officio after the passing of the award Annexure P. 3. Vide orders Annexure P. 4, the Labour Court had modified the award Annexure P. 3. The award Annexure P. 3 has been contested on the grounds that the employees mentioned in Annexure-A attached with the demand notice were never employed by the petitioner-Management. They were never paid wages by it and the question of their regularisation does not arise. According to the management, the persons mentioned in Annexure-A of the demand notice, were the employees of the contractor which fact has not been properly adjudicated and appreciated by respondent No. l, Labour Court and as such the award Annexure P. 3 and order Annexure P. 4 are liable to be quashed being patently illegal and without jurisdiction.
(3.) THIS writ petition was contested by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the order Annexure P. 4 was only to correct the clerical mistake occurred in award Annexure P. 3 and as such the Labour Court did not become functus officio after the passing of the award Annexure P. 3. Supporting the award, it is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondents that the persons mentioned in the Annexure attached with the demand notice were the employees of the management and they had been serving under the management for the last several years and they are entitled to be regularised like other regular employees and they are also entitled to the salary as given to the regular employees and in this manner, they are further entitled for the difference of pay which the respondent-workmen are getting and that of the regular employees.;