Ravindra Shobhawat and Others vs Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—This order shall govern disposal of Writ Petition No. 157/2008 (s), Writ Petition No. 158/2008 (s) and Writ Petition No. 974/2008 (s).

For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 157/2008 (s).

The petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti from 1-1-1991. His services were terminated by an oral order dated 16-1-1998. He challenged his termination from service by raising an industrial dispute contending that his services were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act''). On failure of conciliation the Deputy Labour Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred upon him u/s 10 of the Act, referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Ujjain for adjudication:--

Whether the termination of Ravindra Shobhawat s/o Rameshwar Shobhawat is legal and proper if not, then what relief he is entitled for and what direction should be issued to the employer in this regard?,

On receipt of the reference the Labour Court gave opportunity to the parties to submit their claim and reply. After recording the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court answered the reference vide award dated 23-9-2005 passed in Case No. 51/2004/IDR in favour of the petitioner and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with 25% back wages. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the respondent employer had filed a Writ Petition No. 1841/2006 (s). The learned Single Judge of this Court vide common order dated 5-4-2007 allowed the said writ petition and connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 2458/2005 (s), 1839/2006 (s) and 1842/2006 (s) and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, (3) (2005) 5 SCC 591, (4) (2007) 1 SCC 575, and other cases, if any on the issue. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Presiding Officer would appreciate the law laid down and would apply the said law to the facts of the case involved in the Reference and will accordingly answer to the reference on merits either way in accordance with law.

(Emphasis supplied)

In pursuance to the aforesaid the order dated 5-4-2007 passed in the said writ petitions and other connected writ petitions the matter was re-examined by the Labour Court and the Labour Court by the impugned award answered the award in favour of the respondent and maintained the termination of the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, by observing that the petitioner''s appointment was not through the regular process of employment by calling names from Employment Exchange, advertising the vacancy, following the recruitment procedure and observing the provision about reservation. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Shri G.S. Patwardhan and Shri D.M. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that in the earlier round of litigation while remanding the matter to the Labour Court the learned Single Judge had directed the Labour Court to take into consideration the various judgments mentioned therein including the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra). However, it was also made clear by the learned Single Judge that the decision shall be taken by the Labour Court on merits either way in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the learned Labour Court was required to have taken decision taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court as mentioned in the order and was also required to have considered as to whether they apply to the facts of the case in hand or not and thereafter was further required to decide the matter in accordance with law. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), had no application to the dispute which was to be decided by the Labour Court as the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), is relating to the rights of casual, daily wage, temporary and ad hoc employees about their regularisation, their continuation in service or salary in the regular time scale. Whereas before the Labour Court the matter was regarding termination of service of the petitioner which was alleged to be in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. According to the petitioner, the termination was not preceded by the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore, it was an illegal retrenchment. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has totally ignored the nature of dispute which was to be decided by it and therefore, the impugned award is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

(Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court was required to comply the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and, therefore, had rightly applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra).

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that although the learned Single Judge while remanding the matters had directed the Labour Court to re-examine the issue keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned therein including in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma devi (supra), but learned Single Judge had further directed that other cases if any on the issue shall be brought to the notice of the Presiding Judge by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the Presiding Judge was expected to apply the law to the facts of the case and was expected to decide the matter on merits either way in accordance with law. Thus, in view of the said categorical observations made by this Court in earlier round of litigation in our considered view the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is of no merit.

As would be clear from the dispute referred to the Labour Court, the pleadings raised by the parties the Labour Court was required to decide as to whether the oral order of termination of service of the petitioner, allegedly passed without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act was valid or not and if not what relief the petitioner is entitled for. Thus, the case before it was not a case of regularisation but about termination from service alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Act. It was a specific case of the petitioner that he was working with the respondent since 1-1-1991 till 16-1-1998 when his services were terminated by an oral order without complying the provisions of retrenchment. He also pleaded that before his termination he had put 240 days continuous service in the year. Having regard to this, in our considered view, the reliance of the Labour Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (supra), was wholly misconceived as it had no application to the issue involved before it. The judgment of State of Karnataka. Vs. Umadevi (supra), has no bearing on the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Act and the employer''s obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in it. [See: Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana),

In view of the aforesaid legal position, in our considered view the Labour Court has not appreciated the facts and law correctly. It has ignored the nature of dispute which was required to be adjudicated by it and has mechanically applied the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra), which relates to regularisation and has no application to the facts of the case in which the reinstatement is claimed by a discharged workman without any direction for regularisation of his services. In the circumstances, we quash the impugned award of the Labour Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court for passing a fresh award in accordance with law keeping in view the nature of dispute which is required to be adjudicated by it, as expeditiously as possible.

Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 9-2-2012.

No orders as to the costs.