State of M.P. and Others vs Rajendra Kumar Jain and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Labour Court dated 31.08.1996 passed in case No. 171/MPIR/96, whereby the Labour Court set aside the termination of the petitioner and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The order of Labour Court is affirmed by the Industrial Court in appeal No. 341/MPIR/1996.

The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in passing the impugned order. Respondent No. 1 was not entitled for full back wages. He submits that the Industrial Court has also erred in upholding the order of the Labour Court.

Shri Dudawat supported the orders passed by the Courts below.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the order of the Labour Court shows that it was not in dispute between the parties that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on 08.07.1990 as daily wager Sub-Engineer. He was sought to be removed with effect from 04.03.1991 against which he obtained interim order from the Labour Court in case No. 148/91 MPIR. Further, the employer terminated him from 28.02.1996. The Labour court in para 7 onwards meticulously considered the facts of the case and marshalled the evidence.

After recording evidence of the of the parties and on perusal of the record and documents the Labour court found that respondent No. 1 has continuously worked from 08.07.1990 to 28.02.1996, thereby he has rendered more than 240 days services in the calendar year. There is a specific finding by the Labour Court that before terminating services of respondent No. 1 no retrenchment compensation as mandated in section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act was paid to him. For this reason, termination was held to be bad and respondent No. 1 is directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Industrial Court after considering the relevant aspects upheld the order of the Labour Court.

The scope of interference against the concurrent finding of facts and on the order which is not shown to be perverse is limited. Interference can be made under Article 227 provided order is shown to be without jurisdiction, suffers from any palpable perversity or manifest procedural impropriety. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. The Labour court has taken plausible view which cannot be said to be contrary to law.

It is contended by Shri Dudawat that orders have already been complied with and even back wages have been paid to the respondent No. 1.

Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No Costs.