State of M.P. and another vs Vijay Bahadur Singh

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award

dated 05/01/2015 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Satna.

The respondent was engaged as daily rated worker in the

petitioners-establishment in the year 1986. The respondent had

continuously worked satisfactory upto 25/07/2005, however,

without assigning any reasons, services of the petitioners were

terminated. Before termination, the services of the respondent,

neither any enquiry was conducted nor the mandatory

provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act were

complied with. Respondent, therefore, filed an application for reference before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour

Commissioner has made a reference for adjudication under

Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour

Court, Satna.

The petitioners appeared and filed their written

statement. It has been stated that the respondent was engaged

as daily rated worker on 07/12/2004 on the basis of

availability of work and budgetary provision. The petitioner

continued to work upto 22/03/2005. Thereafter respondent

absconded from the work place and despite various notices,

the respondent never approached to the authority for further

engagement as daily rated worker in the petitioner-

department. As the respondent had wilfully absconded,

therefore, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service.

The Labour Court framed issues and after recording

statement has passed an award dated 05/01/2015 (delivered

on 11/02/2015 thereby directing the petitioners to reinstate

the respondent without back wages. Being aggrieved by that

award, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioners argued that

the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and arbitrary.

He submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider that

the respondent was never appointed on any sanctioned vacant

post but he was engaged temporarily on the basis of

requirement of job and budgetary provision in the petitioner-

department. She further argued that the respondent wilfully

absconded from the duty and despite notices did not join the

duty. It has further been submitted that it was for the

respondent to prove that he was engaged on any sanctioned

vacant post by due procedure of selection. It is further

submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not relying upon

the statement of S.K. Khare, the then SDO (Forest),

Production, Sehore whereby on the basis of muster roll, it has

been shown that the respondent worked for 155 days in a

calendar year of 1997. She further submitted that the Labour

Court while passing the impugned award has not properly

considered the evidence produced by the petitioner. Thus,

the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous.

The respondent has filed reply and supported the award

passed by the Labour Court. He submitted that the award

passed by the Labour Court is based on cogent reasons. So

far as notice which said to have been issued to the

respondent, he submitted that such notice bears no

acknowledgment of the respondent. The amount of Rs.5520/-

in lieu of payment of 21 days salary for the month of March

has been paid and acknowledged by his wife Smt. Babli

Singh with whom the respondent was not enjoying cordial

relation because of that reason his wife instituted proceeding

under Section 498-A of the IPC. The respondent was initially

prosecuted by the JMFC, Rampur Baghelan and he was

convicted vide order dated 26/06/2012, however, acquitted

by the judgment dated 14/07/2014. The acknowledgment of

payment of salary of 21 days to the respondent''s wife is of no

assistance to the petitioners. Services of the respondent have

been terminated in terms of Section 25-N of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The said Section requires issuance of three

month''s detailed notice specifying the reasons for

retrenchment and/or payment of salary in lieu of notice after

approval of the State is a sign-qua-non which has not been

complied with nor the permission of appropriate Govt. has

been taken before issuance of impugned removal or dismissal

order, therefore, the Labour Court in para-6 of the Award has

rightly held that the provisions of Section 25-N of the I.D.

Act, 1947 has not ben complied with. During pendency of

this writ petition, the petitioners had already reinstated the

service of the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the

respondent was engaged as daily rated employees in the

petitioner-department. His services were, discontinued on

26/07/2005. Being aggrieved by that, the respondent has

filed an application before the Labour Commissioner for

making a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)

of the ID Act. Accordingly, a reference was made by the

Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court where the

respondent has filed a statement of claim and the petitioners

have filed written statement denying the allegations made in

the statement of claim. The Labour Court after framing the

issues and recording the evidence by both parties has passed

an award dated 05/01/2015 thereby directing the petitioners

to reinstate the services of the petitioner without back wages.

The Labour Court has passed an award on the ground that

before terminating the services of the petitioner, the

provisions of Section 25-N (1) (a)(b) of the ID Act were not

complied with by the petitioners. Section 25-N of the I.D.

Act reads as under :

"25N. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen- (1) No workman employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year uner an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given three months'' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and

(b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in the section referred to as the specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf."

As per the said provision, before terminating the

services of the employee, three months'' notice in writing

indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of

notice has to be specified. It has further been submitted that

before passing the said order, prior permission of the

appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the State Government is required to be obtained.

In the present case from perusal of the order dated

26/07/2005 (Ex.D/3), it is clear that before terminating the

services of the respondent under Section 25-N of the ID Act,

one month''s notice has been given to the petitioner and

approval of the appropriate Government was not taken before

passing the impugned order of termination and, therefore, the

Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the

impugned award. Thus, this Court does not find any reason

to interfere into the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.