State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another vs Babulal

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the award dated 20.12.2007, passed by the labour Court, Khandwa in favour of the respondent by which the petitioner has been directed to reinstate him without backwages. By order dated 06.08.2008, this petition has been admitted for final hearing and the operation of the impugned award was stayed subject to compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Shri Mayank Purohit, learned G.A. for the petitioner/State submits that he is not aware about whether the petitioners are complying the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act or not?.

Shri Deepak Kumar Batham, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since 2008 neither the respondent has been reinstated, nor the petitioners are paying him last wages drawn, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

The respondent approached the labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to him he was appointed as Peon on 15.05.1995 on daily wages. He worked upto 10.04.2000 and thereafter, he was removed from service by way of oral order. Since, he has worked for more than 240 days, therefore, the employer was required to comply the provisions of Section 25(F) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since, before termination no opportunity of hearing was given nor retrenchment compensation was paid, therefore, termination is bad in law and he is liable to be reinstated back into the service. He has also alleged that the State Government has taken a decision to reinstate all the Daily Rated Employees who were appointed after 01.01.1988. The case of the petitioner was not considered by the scrutiny committee.

After notice, the petitioner filed reply to the statement of claim by admitting that the respondent was engaged as Daily Rated Employee but subject to availability of work. He had never worked for 240 days in one calender year and he himself stopped coming to the department, therefore, there was no question of compliance of Section 24(F) and payment of retrenchment compensation.

In support of the claim, the respondent examined himself and the petitioners examine one Shri V.K. Jha (Executive Engineer), Rehabilitation Department, Barwani. The respondent in his statement before the Court has stated in support of the facts stated in the claim. He was cross-examined. The respondent himself joined the Barwani Division in the Month of September'2007 as Executive Engineer and before that he was posted at Bhopal. In cross-examination he admitted that when the respondent/workmen was engaged as daily wager he was not in the division. The record pertaining to the service is available but he did not bring it to the Court. He also admitted that respondent/workmen was not given retrenchment compensation. After appreciating the evidence, labour Court has found that the respondent/workmen has successfully proved that he worked continuously from 1995 to 2000 and before removal of service he was not given any opportunity of hearing. Principle of "first come last go" was not followed. He was never absent through out his service, therefore, he is liable to be reinstated. Identically placed person approached the labour Court by way of W.P.No.5711/2009 and 5712/2009. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed by this Court and upheld the order passed by the labour Court. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the interference is very limited in light of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329.

Learned labour Court has duly considered the evidence given by the respondent. The petitioner did not give any evidence in rebuttal. Even the witness who was examined was not posted at the relevant point of time in the division where the respondent/workmen worked as Daily Rated Employee. He did not produce any record before the Court, despite being available in the office. This petition is pending since 2008 before this Court. There is no affidavit in respect of compliance of Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act by the petitioner, therefore, it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned award.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.