Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 442 (MP)

Executive Engineer v. Jani Bai

2012-04-25

S.C.SHARMA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No.4/2004 IDR as also the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in case No.165/2007ID. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in our considered view, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits. 4. The orders impugned in this petition are dated 30.03.2007 and 29.04.2008. The delay of five years in challenging the order (Annexure P/1) and of almost four years in challenging the order (Annexure P/2) has not at all been satisfactorily explained. Thus, on the ground of delay and laches in filing the petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. However, we have also gone into the merits of the matter. On a reference being made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the Labour Court, Ujjain after considering the statement of claim and reply and the un-controverted evidence led by the respondent, held that the respondent is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, in view of Full Bench judgment passed by the Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya and others v. State of MP and others 2006 (1) JLJ 14 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 23 . Having held so, the learned Labour Court ordered that the order by which the respondent has been retired compulsorily is liable to be set aside and directed payment of salary for the period during which she was not allowed to continue and work. The said order remained unchallenged and when it was not complied with, the respondent filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming salary to the extent of Rs.48,024/- for the aforesaid period from the petitioner. In the said matter also, the petitioner remained absent and the ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner. Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the respondent, ordered the petitioner to pay salary for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2003 to the respondent, amounting to Rs.48,024/-, in terms of its earlier order dated 30.03.2007. 6. In the said matter also, the petitioner remained absent and the ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner. Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the respondent, ordered the petitioner to pay salary for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2003 to the respondent, amounting to Rs.48,024/-, in terms of its earlier order dated 30.03.2007. 6. Having gone through the aforesaid orders, in our considered view, no case is made out to interfere into the matter; more particularly when the question involved has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra). 7. As a result, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.