Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1, Collector, Kushinagar to recover the amount of Rs. 95,718.00 as wages in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 4.10.2010 issued under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur in R.D. Case No. 31 of 2008 for the period of May, 2007 to June, 2008. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was orally directed to work as apprentice on 5.3.84 on fixed pay @ Rs. 350/- per month as a Clerk by respondent No. 3, the then General Manager, U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. Laxmi Ganj Unit, District Kushingar; that he worked on the post up to 4.4.85 and his services were terminated thereafter w.e.f.4.4.85 by respondent No. 3 allegedly without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.2.1984, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 87 of 1986. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court by its award dated 4.11.1989, appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, reinstated the workman petitioner in service with back wages for the intervening period which he was drawing at the time of his termination. The respondent-Corporation challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 of 1990, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Labour Court, Gorakhpur and others in which following interim order was passed on 2.5.1990. "Issue notice. Meanwhile operation of the impugned order dated 4.11.1989 of the respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed." The aforesaid interim order dated 2.5.1990 was modified on an application moved by the learned counsel for the applicants-respondent vide order dated 14.12.1990 which reads thus : JUDGEMENT_462_ADJ9_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_462_ADJ9_2011Image2.jpg 14.12.1990" Pursuant thereto the workman was reinstated in service but he was paid wages @ Rs. 350/- per month. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in default on 9.1.2003 vacating the interim order for non-prosecution by the petitioners counsel being on strike. Thereafter, the respondent-Sugar Corporation filed a restoration application which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 2.3.2005 by the following order. "Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This is an application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed by me for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. The order dated 9.1.2003 is as under: - "The lawyers have gone on lighting strike disturbing the Court proceedings. List has been revised. Since none appears to press this writ petition the same is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated." The counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not appear due to strike of lawyers on 9.1.2003 and he had no knowledge about the order dated 9.1.2003 till 3.1.2005 when he came to Allahabad with regard to different cases of the unit and made enquiry from the Computer Section about the present case and came to know that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.1.2003. He further submits that the delay was not intentional and there was no knowledge about the order and restoration application has been moved on 6.1.2005 without further delay when he acquired knowledge that the writ petition was dismissed on 9.1.2003. On 4.12.2002 the case was passed over on the request of the counsel for the petitioner and was ordered to be listed in the next cause list. Thereafter the case came up on the list on 9.1.2003 when the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, the restoration application has been moved after a lapse of two years. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the lawyers' strike are illegal and that effective steps should be taken to stop the growing tendency to go on strikes as they have no right to go on strike If a lawyer, holding a Vakalatnama of a client, abstains from attending Court due to strike call, he puts himself to personal risk and liability for any action that may be taken by his client. In Pandurang Duttatravs Khandekarv. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 556; Tahsil Ram Issar Das Sadarangam v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangam, (1993) (3) SCC 256; Common Clause A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 19; Sanjeev Dutt v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, (1995) 3 SCC 619; Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India, 1995(1) SCC 732; K. Jhon Koshiv. Dr. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw, (1998) 8 SCC 624; Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., 1999 (1) SCC 37 and Ex. Caption Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 it was held by the Supreme Court that the advocates have no right to go on strike and the Courts are under no obligation to adjourn the cases on the board because lawyers are on strike. The Courts are not to be privy to such strikes which amounts to denial of justice to the litigants. The judiciary is accountable to the public and the dispensation of justice cannot be stopped for any reason including strike by lawyers. The Apex Court has held that right to speedy justice is included in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507 it was held that the litigant has a right to speedy justice. Similarly in Manoj Kumar v. Civil Judge, Deoria (Writ Petition No. 33778 of 1997 decided on 10.10.1997) the Division Bench of this Court has held that: " Before parting with this case, we would like to mention that it is deeply regrettable and highly objectionable that there are strikes in District Courts in U.P. in flimsy and frivolous pretexts and some District Courts function only for about 60 or 70 days in a year. This is a shocking state of affairs and will no longer be tolerated by this Court. The judiciary and bar are both acountable to the public and they must behave in a reasonable manner so that cases are decided quickly and thus the faith of the public in the judiciary is maintained. Surely, the public has a right to expect this from us." The same view is followed in M/s Surest) Chandra Varshney & Co. v. State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 15342 of 2000 decided on 30.3.2000) and Siddarth Kumar v. Upper Civil Judge, Ghazipur, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 587. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the delay in moving the restoration application was not intentional has no force as the clerk of his office ought to have noted the orders passed during the strike period. He could have inspected the file even after the strike was over. No sufficient cause and cogent reasons have been given for restoration of the writ petition. The application for restoration has been moved on 6.1.2005. It suffers from latches due to callous attitude of the petitioner. The facts of this case are covered by the decision rendered by me while deciding Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 164294 of 2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13271 of 1986 (Smt. Beena Rani Garg and others v. Deputy Director of Education, Region I, Meerut and others). For the reasons stated above, the restoration application is rejected."
(3.) SPECIAL Leave to Appeal (Civil Case No. 12336 of 2005) was filed before the Supreme Court against the order dated 2.3.2005 rejecting the recall application aforesaid in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11279 of 1990, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.7.2005 by their Lordships at the Apex Court. Respondent No. 3 then moved a modification application before the Apex Court for modification of the order dated 13.7.2005 which was also dismissed by it vide order dated 3.7.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner,Gorakhpur for recovery of his wages from the employer. It was allowed vide order dated 29.12.2005 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner directing respondent No. 3 to pay wages of the petitioner as per the Sugar Wage Board. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18218 of 2006, U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation v. The Collector, Kushinagar and others was preferred by respondent No. 3 against order dated 29.12.2005 before the High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.4.2006 directing the U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corproation) to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-before the Deputy Labour Commissioner within period of one month. The petitioner again filed a review application for review of the order dated 5.4.2006 which was modified vide order dated 6.7.2006 directing respondent No. 3 to comply with the order dated 5.4.2006 and deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a period of 3 weeks. Special Appeal No. 584 of 2006 was then preferred by the Corporation challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 5.4.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18218 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2006; that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18218 of 2006 was then filed by the Corporation challenging the order dated 6.7.2006 in review application and Special Appeal No. 912 of 2006 which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2006.;