State of M.P. vs Gyan Singh Jatav

Rohit Arya, J.—By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners/State seek to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned award dated 11/10/2012 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior in case No. 11/A/I.D. Act/09 Reference.

Upon failure of conciliation between the parties, the State Government made following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication. Reference reads as under:-

Upon completion of pleadings of the parties issues were framed and parties led evidence. The applicant/respondent contended that he was engaged as a daily-wager employee in the petitioners''/non-applicants'' department and has been working regularly as such since 9/11/1977 till the date of termination i.e. 11/11/2006. As such, he has completed more than 29 years in the petitioners'' department, however, his services are terminated without any notice and without payment of any retrenchment compensation as provided for u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), therefore, by force of law the termination is illegal inasmuch as the applicant/respondent having completed more than 240 days in a calender year and in all more than 29 years'' his services. Termination of services otherwise than by way of disciplinary action without payment of compensation as provided for u/s 25F of the Act is bad in law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the applicant/respondent has also led oral evidence and established the fact as regards performance of duties for more than 240 days in a calender year with 29 years of services to his credit. Non-applicants/petitioners also led evidence. The defence witness, Lokendra Singh Tomar in cross-examination, para 4, has admitted that the applicant/respondent has served the non-applicants''/petitioners'' department since 9/11/1977 to 11/11/2006 as a daily-wager employee and during this period he has been performing his duties regularly. It is further submitted that the department is functioning and still in existence. That apart, upon perusal of the muster roll Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/94, it is established that the applicant/respondent-Gyan Singh Jatav has worked as a daily-wager employee in petitioners'' department for number of years mentioned therein and has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. Upon evaluation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the workman/respondent was regularly working in non-applicants''/petitioners'' department for last 29 years. In view of the aforesaid, termination of services of respondent/workman without compliance of statutory provisions as provided for u/s 25F of the Act was held to be illegal and accordingly, the reference is answered in negative and against the non-applicants''/petitioners'' department holding the applicant/respondent entitled for reinstatement, however, without any back wages. It is ordered that the applicant/respondent be reinstated in service within two months from the date of impugned award.

Having gone through the award impugned, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record has recorded findings as regards factum of employment of applicant/respondent in non-applicants''/petitioners'' department since 1977 to 11/11/2006 on which date he was terminated from service and further that during this span of period the respondent/applicant served for more than 240 days in a calender year and, therefore, termination for want of compliance of statutory provisions as provided for u/s 25F of the Act was illegal in nature. The findings so recorded by the Labour Court are impregnable in nature. Labour Court has not committed any error of law much less jurisdictional error warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.