Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1230 (MP)

Ravishankar Ahirwar v. Presiding Officer, MPSEB

2006-11-03

R.K.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner by Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. He is heard on the question of admission. Petitioner by way of filing this petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order passed by the State Labour Court. The State Labour Court earlier granted ex parte injunction in favour of the petitioner on 21.6.2006 and thereafter has vacated the interim order by passing the impugned order on 13.10.2006, which is Annexure P-4 to the petition. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis as a Meter Reader. According to the averments made in the application before the Labour Court, which is Annexure P-2 to the petition, in para 2, it has been stated that the last extension of the agreement was upto 23.8.2006. There is nothing on record to show that the agreement has been extended after 23.8.2006. 3. Before the Labour Court the case was filed by the petitioner claiming the classification under the standard standing orders alleging that he is a permanent employee. The Labour Court earlier granted ex parte injunction and thereafter the same has been vacated. 4. Under the similar circumstances, this Court in WP No. 15498/2006 (S) decided on 1.11.2006 has dismissed the petition on the ground that after the expiry of the contract an employee has no right to claim any reinstatement or to continue in service. The judgment so passed by this Court in WP No. 15498/2006 (S) (supra) shall have the full application in the present case also. 5. It may also be seen that the apex Court under the similar circumstances has also deprecated the practice of passing the interim orders by the High Court and the judgment as such is reported in 2005 (3) SCC 79 [India Literacy Board and others v. Veena Chaturvedi and others]. In the said case also an argument to justify the interim order was submitted by the employee that by issuing periodical appointment orders, unfair treatment and exploitation of labour was taken to be a ground to justify the interim injunction. The apex Court thereafter deprecated such a practice of granting interim orders, by the High Court, after the expiry of the period of contract. The apex Court further held that the High Court as an interim measure cannot issue a writ of Mandamus for continuing an employee in service. The apex Court thereafter deprecated such a practice of granting interim orders, by the High Court, after the expiry of the period of contract. The apex Court further held that the High Court as an interim measure cannot issue a writ of Mandamus for continuing an employee in service. The relevant extract of paras 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the judgment passed in India Literacy Board and others (supra) is as under : "14. Concluding her arguments, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant cannot legally be permitted to proceed with the impugned action pursuant to the impugned advertisement against the posts held by the respondents nor can the appellant discontinue or disengage the respondents from service. By issuing periodical appointment orders under the conditions of payment of consolidated monthly amount, the respondents had been subjected to an unfair treatment and to exploitation of labour which is specifically forbidden under the constitutional scheme. 15. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel appearing on either side. We have also perused the orders passed by the learned single Judge and the orders passed by the Division Bench. 16. A perusal of the order passed by the High Court would clearly show that the High Court as an interim measure directed issue of appointment order which was not even the main relief claimed in the writ petition. The question is whether the reliefs which are not prayed for or which are not claimed in the petition could have been awarded by the High Court even before the disposal of the main case. Another question would also arise as to whether the writ petition is maintainable against the appellant Board which according to the appellant is neither an instrumentality of the State nor a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. A further question would also arise as to whether the appellant is under an obligation to select the respondents as teachers when the contract entered into by them ceased on 30.6.2001. 17. Leave to appeal was sought for by the appellant on the above grounds, among others. A further question would also arise as to whether the appellant is under an obligation to select the respondents as teachers when the contract entered into by them ceased on 30.6.2001. 17. Leave to appeal was sought for by the appellant on the above grounds, among others. It has been consistently held by this Court in various cases that in a case of contractual appointment for a fixed term, no mandamus can be issued for continuing them in service but in the present case as an interim measure, a direction has been given by the High Court to issue appointment orders which was not even the main relief claimed in the writ petition." (empahsis applied) 6. In the present case, it may also be seen that the contract period has already expired on 23.8.2006. There is nothing on record to show that the contract period has been extended thereafter. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality committed by the Labour Court in vacating the ex parte injunction order dated 21.6.2006 by passing the impugned order dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-4). The order passed by the Labour Court is also in consonance with the judgment passed by the apex Court in India Literacy Board and others (supra). In view of this, either the Labour Court or this Court cannot issue an injunction or writ of Mandamus by way of interim relief to continue the petitioner in service. Therefore, the present petition as such is devoid of substance and is dismissed.