Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee, Mahidpur vs State of M.P. and Others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. Nos. 86, 89, 92, 95 and 98 of 2011 (S). For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 84 of 2011. This petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No. 53/2006/ID Act Reference by which the labour Court had ordered reinstatement of the third respondent without backwages.

Briefly stated, challenging his oral order of termination from service, the third respondent had approached the Labour Commissioner for making reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Ujjain. The Labour Court after recording the evidence led by the parties held that the third respondent was working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector with the petitioner - Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mahidpur from 1.08.1995 and was removed by an oral order dated 31.12.1997. The Labour Court recorded a finding that he had worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding to his termination. It also held that the termination is illegal, retrenchment as the procedure for retrenchment provided u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was not followed. A finding has also been recorded by the Labour Court that though the record about salary and attendance of the third respondent was summoned but inspite of an order being passed, it was not produced. In the circumstances by drawing adverse inference, the Labour Court held that the petitioner has illegally retrenched the third respondent. As regards the delay in raising the dispute challenging the termination, the Labour Court has observed that there is no limitation fixed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However for the delay, the Labour Court declined to grant backwages and directed reinstatement of the third respondent without backwages.

Having gone through the impugned award and after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that the petition has no merit.

On going through the impugned award and the record we find that on the application for summoning the record a specific order was passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner to produce the record about payment of salary, attendance register pertaining to third respondent, however inspite of the said order the petitioner had failed to produce the record. In the circumstances, the labour Court drawn adverse inference and after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court held that third respondent has been able to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days continuously in the year preceding to his termination. The view taken by the Labour Court appears to be justified and gets support from the law laid down in the matter of Sita Ram and Others Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, , Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Mahak Singh and Others, , Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, , Naveen Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

It is also well settled that since there is no limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act for raising the dispute about termination, reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. The delay can be a ground to deny the backwages. [See Karan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board, , Irrigation Research Institute and Another Vs. Kripal Singh, In the present case also for the delay in raising the dispute the labour Court has rightly denied back wages to the third respondent.

In the circumstances, on our view, the third respondent''s termination was an illegal retrenchment as the same has been done without following procedure, therefore, the same has rightly been set aside by the Labour Court. [See (2010) 4 MPLJ 39 Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana), (2004) 103 FLR 1465 Krishna Bahadur Vs. M/s Purna Theatre and others].

As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.