- (1.) Several questions, one connected with and dependent on the other, have cropped up for consideration in this writ petition: whether an Award passed by an industrial tribunal can be enforced by an employee who was no longer working in the company; whether an Award by an industrial tribunal may be enforced by way of a writ petition, whether a workman has a right to seek enforcement of the same at any point of time or conversely whether delay in lodging the claim can be set up by the employer as a factor disentitling the workman to seek any remedy out of the Award; whether a workman who had stopped coming to his place of work for a year can be said to have abandoned his service. These and other related issues are to be examined within the compass of the present case.
(2.) The petitioner's case in short is that the had been working as a casual canteen boy in the Airport Canteen Services Unit since 1988. In 1994 had typhoid and had to remain absent for a long time. In 1988 the employer in relation to the management of Air India referred a dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as regards the wages and other benefits of its employees.
(3.) An Award was passed in 1995 in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Settlement. The petitioner made several representations to the authorities for regularization of his service. These, however, did not produce any result. Consequently he has filed this present writ petition inter alia seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents either to regularize his services or appoint him to any suitable post in terms of the Award. The denial by the respondents of the case of the petitioner has led to the consideration of the issues as mentioned before. In their affidavit they have raised the question that a writ court cannot be the appropriate forum for enforcing a settlement and the petitioner has no legal right to be regularized. On the facts, the respondents have more specific allegations. The petitioner had been working as a casual canteen boy since 1988 on 'no work no pay' basis. He remained absent since March 10, 1994 without any intimation. He never informed anybody about his alleged sickness. After about 71/2 years by a letter, dated August 2, 2001 he sought re-employment as a casual worker. ;