Mani Ram Chadar vs The State of M.P. and Others

Sanjay Yadav, J.—With consent heard. Order dated 13.4.1998 passed by M.P. Industrial Court Jabalpur is being assailed by Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 de this petition whereby order dated 19.12.1989 passed by the Labour Court has been set aside.

Labour Court vide order dated 19.12.1989 had allowed the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 31 of the M.P. Industrial Relation, Act 1960 and directed for petitioner''s reinstatement without back wages.

Relevant facts giving rise to dispute before Labour Court are that petitioner was engaged as Badli Labour for the specified period from 21.5.1988 in place of Bhaiyalal Pandey and was detailed on duty from 21.10.1988 as Conductor enroute Salaiya -Sehora.

On 01.12.1988, petitioner was apprehended carrying 14 passengers without ticket which resulted in non extension of petitioner''s engagement as Badli worker.

Alleging illegal termination without holding departmental enquiry, petitioner preferred an application u/s 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relation Act 1960 before the Labour Court.

Claim of the petitioner was denied by respondent/employer. It was stated therein that since engaged as Badli worker petitioner was not regular employee and having been apprehended carrying 14 passenger without ticket he was not continued thereafter as Badli worker.

Parties led evidence before Labour Court. Labour Court on the basis of pleadings and counter pleadings and the evidence on record returned a finding that the petitioner has been wrongly terminated from service. Accordingly vide order dated 19.12.1989, the petitioner was reinstated in service without back wages.

Aggrieved respondent employer preferred an appeal before State Industrial Court.

Appeal was allowed. Vide impugned order dated 13.4.1988 and order passed by the Labour Court has been set aside on a finding that the petitioner was engaged only as a Badli worker and being so was not entitled for any departmental enquiry.

The Industrial Court also found that there was an admission on part of the petitioner having carrying 14 passengers without ticket and also evidence of the checker was against the petitioner.

The petitioner assailing the order passed by Industrial Court has to submit that Industrial Court patently erred in misconstruing evidence on record and holding that the petitioner being a Badli worker was not entitled for an departmental enquiry in respect of misconduct. It is further contended that Industrial Court erred in misreading the evidence on record by holding that the petitioner was found guilty of carrying 14 passengers without ticket.

Respondent on their turn support the order passed by Industrial Court.

Considered the rival submission. Perused the record of Labour Court.

It is not in dispute that petitioner was engaged as a Badli worker in place of one Bhaiyalal Pandey. Petitioner was engaged for limited period from 21.5.1988. It is also not in dispute that on 1.12.1988 petitioner was working as conductor en-route Salaiya-Sehora whereon checking was conducted by ticket inspector Shaikh Rajab.

Petitioner in paragraph 8 of his cross examination has categorically admitted:

Similarly the defence witness Shaikh Rajab in his statement in paragraph 4 of his statement has categorically stated:

On these evidence categorical finding has been recorded by Industrial Court:

Therefore in the considered opinion of this Court the finding arrived at by Industrial Court that petitioner was employed as a Badlidar and on the date of inspection was found carrying 14 passengers without ticket duly supplied by evidence on record as would warrant an interference in absence of cogent material on the contrary.

In respect of contention raised by the petitioner that his services could not have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry as is provided under the Standard Standing Order.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner having failed to establish that he was classified as permanent employee under the Standard Standing Order is not entitled for protection as granted under Standard Standing Order 11 stipulates:

Termination of employment and the notice thereof to be given by employer and employee.--(a) When the employment of a permanent employee is to be terminated he shall be given one months notice or shall be paid wages for one month in lieu of notice. No employee other than a permanent employee shall be entitled to any such notice or wages in lieu thereof for termination of his service.

(emphasis supplied)

(b) The reason for the termination of service shall be recorded in writing and shall be communicated to the employee unless such communication may be in the opinion of the manager directly or indirectly lay in the company or the manager or the person signing the communication open to civil or criminal proceedings at the instance of the employee.

(c) Any permanent employee desirous of leaving the employment shall give one month''s notice to his departmental officer stating the reason for which he is leaving but if he so requires he may be relieved earlier than the date on which the period of notice expires.

(d) No notice shall be necessary for the discontinuance of the employment of a permanent seasonal employee on the expiry of the season but he shall have a lien on his post at the commencement of the next season.

(e) subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), no temporary employee whether monthly rated or weekly rated or piece rated, and no probationer or badli or fixed term employments employee as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment or on its expiry shall be entitled to any notice or pay in lieu thereof if his service are terminated, but the services of temporary employee shall not be terminated as a punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges of misconduct alleged against him.

Having thus considered this court does not finds any substance in the challenge to order passed by the Industrial Court reversing the order of reinstatement. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.