State of M.P. vs Labour Court and Another

A.M. Sapre, J.—Challenge in this writ filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to an award dated September 22, 1997 (Annexure P-7), passed by Labour Court u/s 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. By impugned award, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of respondent alongwith back wages. It is this award which is impugned by the state.

Heard Ms. Meena Chafekar, learned Deputy Government Advocate for petitioner-State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (State) and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in the writ, worth admission.

Once, the Labour Court while answering the reference made to it, on evidence records a finding that the respondent has worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year, that no retrenchment compensation was paid to respondent before dispensing his services, that no inquiry was held prior to his termination for any misconduct, then in my view no case for an interference, is made out by the petitioner in the impugned award. If these factors which are material and decisive are decided on evidence in favour of respondent (employee) and against the employer (State) then, a direction to reinstate with full back wages, has to follow as a necessary consequence. Indeed, an industrial reference u/s 10 of the Act was made to decide only these material issues.

I, thus, find no merit in this writ which has only limited power of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No point was brought to my notice worth taking note of for entertaining the writ and which in fact arise out of the award.

Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine: