RAJESH SHANKAR, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter bearing Reference No. 1/250/2003/B2 dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 1, whereby the petitioner has been directed to implement the settlement award dated 16.07.1981 passed in Reference No. 60 of 1975 in so far as the remaining 6 workmen out of 47 workmen are concerned, who have not yet been provided employment although the terms and conditions mentioned in the settlement award dated 16.07.1981 passed in Reference No. 60 of 1975 does not stand satisfied.
(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that a dispute relating to the action of the management of Loyabad Colliery, Dhanbad, whereby they stopped the workmen concerned to work, was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The reference was registered as Reference No. 60 of 1975 and was decided by order dated 16.07.1981 in terms of the settlement filed by the parties whereby it was agreed to provide employment to the workmen subject to their medical fitness without any back wages. In compliance of the terms of the Award, documents submitted by the Awardees were considered and during the period 1982-83, 9 awardees were provided employment and again during the year 1990-96, 38 awardees were given appointment. The respondent no. 2 filed writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3686 of 2003 seeking direction for implementation of the Award dated 16.07.1981 which was finally disposed of by directing the respondent No. 1 to look into the matter and decide as to why the Award has not yet been implemented and if there is any difficulty, it would communicate the grounds within 3 months. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, issued notice to the petitioner which was replied on 25.11.2003 by stating that the Union had failed to submit requisite papers and documents relating to Sri Shyamal Kumar Manjhi and 5 others before the Management and as such the Award has become inoperative on account of expiry of a long period. Thereafter, the respondent Union filed another writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 2834 of 2005, wherein the petitioner filed counter affidavit stating that the management had been punctual for implementation of the award, but the Union did not submit necessary documents within time for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.08.2009 directing the respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two months. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 again called upon the petitioner to attend for discussing the matter whereupon the representative of the petitioner appeared and filed necessary documents by stating that in terms of the settlement, the Union had to file the documents and particulars of the concerned workman within 45 days of the Settlement to which it failed and as such, the Award was not implemented due to the laches on the part of the Union. However, the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30.10.2009 directed the petitioner to implement the Award in to and submit implementation report, failing which suitable action for non-implementation of the Award under section 29 read with section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be initiated.;