Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1480 (MP)

Tarun Niware v. Muncipal Corporation

2013-11-28

SANJAY YADAV

body2013
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. This order shall govern final disposal of W.P. No. 5946/2012 - Ramesh Kumar Badginya v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5947/2012 - Ajay Prakash Mishra v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5948/2012 - Santosh Kumar Shukla v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5949/2012 - Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5950/2012 -Smt. Vidhya Jain v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5951/2012 - Ajay Singh v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5952/2012 - Smt. Savita Yadav v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5953/2012 - Mukesh Kumar Tiwari v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5954/2012 -Virendra Kumar Bajpai v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5955/2012 - Pramod Jain v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5956/2012 -Krishan Gopal Garg v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5957/2012 - Smt. Geeta Soni v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5961/2012 - Vishnu Datt Garg v. Municipal Corporation, W.P. No. 5962/2012 - Vijay Kumar Garg v. Municipal Corporation. Petition is directed against award dated 13.7.2011 whereby, Labour Court in a dispute raised under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 against the removal has directed the reinstatement of the petitioners as the termination was found in violation of provision of Section 25F of the Act of 1947;but declined to grant the back wages. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that Labour Court erred in declining the grant of back wages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent has to submit that labour court is well justified in declining the back wages as the Workmen had failed to discharge onus that they were not gainfully employed when they were out of employment. Reliance has also been placed on an order of Division Bench in W.P. No. 15091/2007(s) and W.P. No. 15093/2007(s) decided on 8.12.2008. 4. Considered the submissions. 5. Evident it is from the award that no efforts were made by petitioner/workman to establish that while out of service they were not gainfully employed. In view whereof, the verdict arrived at by the Labour Court for non-grant of back wages to the petitioner/workman cannot be faulted with. 6. It is also observed from the award that it was the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P. No. 2010/1999 which was dismissed on 29.7.1999. Thereafter in an appeal under Letter Patent: LPA No. 294/99, the respondent/Corporation was directed vide order dated 30.10.2002 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/workman. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P. No. 2010/1999 which was dismissed on 29.7.1999. Thereafter in an appeal under Letter Patent: LPA No. 294/99, the respondent/Corporation was directed vide order dated 30.10.2002 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/workman. It was the rejection of representation, which led the workman to raise dispute which became subject matter of Reference Cases decided vide award dated 13.7.2011 wherein while directing reinstatement of back wages have been declined. 7. In almost similar circumstances Division Bench in Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni District Katni v. Arun Pathak and another : W.P. No. 15091/2007(s) has held: 8. Coming to the question of back wages which is being agitated. In two of the matters- W.P. No. 15091/07 (S) and W.P. No. 15093/07 (S) the back wages have not been granted by the Labour Court; that direction is found to be proper. For various reasons are not inclined to grant 25% back wages which have been granted to the workmen in W.P. No. 15288/05 (S), W.P. No. 15092/07 (S) and W.P. No. 7987/07 (S), initially the petitioner approached before this Court and the matter travelled in the LPA, adjudication was sought before Labour Court after the fresh order passed considering the period spent in this Court, the employees approached the Labour Court, later on in second round, there was delay and also considering the period for which the services were rendered, it would not be proper to direct the payment of back wages as financial crunch is being admittedly faced by the Corporation, we set aside the part of the award passed by the Industrial Court. 8. In view whereof, no case is being made out to interfere with the Award of non-grant of back wages. Petition being devoid of substance is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.