Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1128 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bharat Singh Rai

2015-10-27

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vandana Kasrekar, J. Heard on I.A. No. 12644/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for Condonation of delay. 2. Looking to the grounds set out in the application, I find that good and sufficient ground is made out by the petitioners for condoning the delay. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 12644/2011 is allowed. 4. Also heard on the question of admission. The respondent was working on the post of Chowkidar in the petitioners' department since 01.04.1987 and was removed from service vide oral order dated 01.01.1995. The respondent has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. The respondent has filed an application before the Labour Court challenging his order of termination on the ground that his oral termination from the service is illegal retrenchment and prior to termination of his service, he has neither been given any charge sheet nor matter is pending against him in respect of misconduct. No departmental proceedings initiated against him nor he has been given any reason for such termination and the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-I of the Act have not been followed. Thus he prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages. 5. The petitioners appeared and denied the averments made by the respondent. They have submitted that respondent was engaged in the year 1987 as per the availability of work and was paid the wages on Collector rate. He was not permanent employee of the department. He never worked continuously for 240 days and, therefore, there is no question of compliance of Chapter 5B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and after appreciating the material on record held that the removal of the respondent from service amounts to illegal retrenchment and directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service and such payment be made within 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Labour Court is illegal and contrary to the record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Labour Court is illegal and contrary to the record. She argues that the Labour Court has failed to consider that the respondent was engaged in the department in the year 1987 as per availability of the work and he was not permanent employee of the department. She further argues that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the respondent has already completed more than 240 days in any calendar year. She further submits that the respondent was never engaged on sanctioned vacant post and was used to be engaged as per the availability of the work and budgetary sanction. She further argues that the Labour Court has erred in allowing the application of the respondent. She submits that the respondent was removed from service on 01.01.1995, whereas, Industrial Dispute Act has been raised in the year 2004 and thus no plausible reasons has been given by the respondent for inordinate delay and, therefore, the claim of the respondent ought to have been dismissed on this sole ground. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 9. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent was appointed in the year 1987 and from the documents produced by the respondent i.e. mustered role which is clear that the respondent have already completed 297 days from December 1994. Thus, from the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners himself, it is clear that the respondent has already completed more than 240 days and, therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the said order. This is a petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India and as has been held by the Apex Court in number of cases that scope of interference in writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being limited and the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error in passing the said order. 10. In view of this, the petition has no force and the same is dismissed without any order as to cost.