Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 920 (MP)

M. P. , ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. ANIL YADAV

2008-07-28

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2008
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. ( 1. ) Heard on the question of admission. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.05.07 passed by the Labour Court, Indore in case No. 471/05 MPIR and also the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the President Industrial Court Indore in Appeal No. 153/07. ( 2. ) Briefly stated the respondent filed an application under Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act (for short, the MPIR Act) before the Labour Court Indore challenging his termination order dated 1.06.2005. According to the respondent/employee he was in continuous service of the petitioner for a period of more than one year and the petitioner terminated his services without following the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the I.D. Act). According to him, neither any enquiry was conducted nor one month notice or wages in lieu of such notice was paid before terminating his services. He stated that he had not been paid even the retrenchment compensation. ( 3. ) The case of the petitioner was that the respondent was Badlidar employee engaged on daily wages, and therefore, there was no necessity to comply with the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. ( 4. ) The Labour Court recorded the evidence led by both the sides and held that the respondent had worked for more than a year continuously without break in service and, therefore, he is entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. Accordingly, Labour Court held the termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement of the respondent without back-wages. The Labour Court, further, observed that in case it is not possible to reinstate the respondent, he may be paid retrenchmeni compensation and admissible benefits in the alternative. ( 5. ) The petitioner/employer challenged the aforesaid order of the Labour Court by filing an appeal under Section 65 of the Act. The Industrial Court by order dated 7.9.77 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has Filed this writ petition. ( 6. ) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in this petition. ( 7. The Industrial Court by order dated 7.9.77 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has Filed this writ petition. ( 6. ) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in this petition. ( 7. ) The Labour Court, as well as the Industrial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, have recorded categorical finding that the respondent had worked for more than a year continuously without break in service. The Courts below have also recorded the finding that the work of the respondent was satisfactory. It is, further, held by the Courts below that the respondent having worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously for several years is entitled to the statutory protection of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Court placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Chemicals v/s Subhash N.Pandya [ 1984 (II) LLJ 75 ] and also on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v/s C.S.Sonawane, [1993 Lab IC 1494] in which it has been held that the Badii workman is a workman falling within Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. There is no reason to hold that the retrenchment of a badii worker, who has been in continuous service from 1972, without complying with the terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act within the scope of that section. The Industrial Court by considering the ratio of these decisions held that even badli employee is entitled to protection of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act if he has completed the service of one year within the meaning of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Court after close scrutiny of the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner before it, in the case of K.S.R.T.C.Corporation v/s S. G.Kotturappa ( AIR 2005 SC 1933 ) found that in the said judgment the Supreme Court has held that even a badii employee who has rendered continuous service of 240 days or more during the period of twelve months proceeding the date of termination of his services, is entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. ( 8. ( 8. ) Having regard to the aforesaid concurrent Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the respondent has rendered service for more than a year continuously and worked for more than 240 days in an year for several years and the legal position that even a badii employee is entitled for the protection of Section 25-F of I.D. Act in my considered view, no case is made out to interfere into the orders of the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 9. ) Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.