Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 377 (MP)

Angraag Fashion Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M. P.

2012-04-03

S.C.SHARMA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure P2) by which a reference has been made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to decide the dispute about quantum of amount payable by the petitioner to respondents No.3 and 4, as also against the award dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure P9) passed by Labour Court, Indore in Case No.70/Reference I.D./2006. 2. Briefly stated, in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, a Division Bench of this Court passed following order on 23.11.2010 in W.P. No.3964 of 2009 filed by the present private respondents : “ The Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 28.03.2006 referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Indore for quantification of the amount of backwages as awarded to the petitioners by the Labour Court vide award dated 23.06.2005. The Labour Court, Indore by the impugned order dated 2.05.2009 passed in case No.70/ID/06 instead of quantifying the amount of backwages, dismissed the petitioners’ claim holding that the petitioners’ could not prove that they were regular workmen and were getting regular salary and not piece rated payment. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order as also the order dated 23.06.2005 (Annexure P3) by which the petitioners’ termination from service were found to be illegal and they were directed to be reinstated with full backwages, we are of the view that while deciding the claim of the petitioners about the quantification of backwages, instead of quantifying the amount of backwages, the Labour Court has gone beyond the scope of the dispute referred to it. When the order of reinstatement of the petitioners in service of respondent with full backwages had already attained finality, the only question which was required to be decided by the Labour Court in view of section 33-C(2) of the Act was as to for what amount the petitioners are entitled by way of backwages as ordered by the Labour Court by its order dated 23.06.2005. The Labour Court instead of deciding the quantum of backwages has gone beyond the scope of reference. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court being beyond the scope of reference is unsustainable, and as such, the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The Labour Court instead of deciding the quantum of backwages has gone beyond the scope of reference. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court being beyond the scope of reference is unsustainable, and as such, the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication for quantification of the amount of backwages payable to the petitioners by the respondent in terms of the order dated 23.06.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Indore in the original proceedings. (emphasis supplied). With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Let the records of the Labour Court be sent back forthwith.” 3. It has not been disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said order passed by the Division Bench has attained finality, as the same has not been assailed before the Supreme Court by any of the parties. 4. We find that while deciding the said writ petition, this Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication about quantification of the amount of backwages payable to the present respondents No.3 and 4 by the present petitioners in terms of the award dated 23.06.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Indore in the original proceedings. 5. While complying with the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by this Court, the Labour Court on remand recorded a finding of fact that the respondents No.3 and 4 are entitled for the amount quantified in the impugned award. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity in the said finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. On the other hand, we find that the quantification has been made after due appreciation of evidence. 7. We also find no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned award could not have been passed by the Labour Court in view of the fact that such a dispute could not have been referred to it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and that the order of reference itself was bad in law. 8. We also find no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned award could not have been passed by the Labour Court in view of the fact that such a dispute could not have been referred to it by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and that the order of reference itself was bad in law. 8. Keeping in view the fact that the order passed by Division Bench of this Court was never assailed by the petitioners, the Labour Court was duty bound to quantify the amount as directed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner’s submission is liable to be rejected. In the circumstances, no case is made out to interfere in the matter. 9. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.