Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 90 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ghasilal

2016-02-04

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the State Government (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Management”) is directed against the Award dated 15.10.2008 passed by Labour Court No. 3, Gwalior, Camp at Guna in Case No.1/A/ID Act/05/Reference. 2. The appropriate Government on dispute being raised against termination of employment and failure of conciliation has made reference to the Labour Court in respect of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Workman”), as under:- **D;k Jh ?kklhyky firk nhipan dk lsok i`Fkdhdj.k fu;ksDrk }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25&p esa fufgr izko/kku dk ikyu djrs gq, fd;k x;k gS\ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gS ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ'k fn, tkuk pkfg,\** 3. Workman filed statement of claim inter alia contending that he had been serving since 8.8.1988 as labour to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. On fateful day of 31st December, 1989, he had fallen from a 15 ft. wall and had broken his backbone and therefore, had become handicapped. Management by serving notice dated 7.7.2001 terminated his employment. The Workman had approached the Labour Court against termination and on 6.8.2001, the Labour Court had granted interim relief as a result, the Workman continued in the service of Management. Suddenly, on 21.5.2002, again Workman's services were terminated without any notice, opportunity or order. The termination in fact and in effect was retrenchment as was not as a result of any disciplinary action. Since Management did not comply with condition precedent for retrenchment as contemplated under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the retrenchment was illegal. With aforesaid pleadings, the Workman prayed for reinstatement with back wages. 4. Management filed written-statement denying the averments made in the statement of claim. It is denied that Workman was working since 8.8.1988. It is also denied that on 31.12.1989 the Workman broken his backbone after having fallen from a wall. It is submitted that the Workman was terminated after his medical examination. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that claim be dismissed. 5. The Labour Court framed issues inter alia as to whether, the Workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and whether the termination was illegal and improper. 6. Parties led evidence. 7. It is submitted that the Workman was terminated after his medical examination. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that claim be dismissed. 5. The Labour Court framed issues inter alia as to whether, the Workman had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year and whether the termination was illegal and improper. 6. Parties led evidence. 7. While answering issue No.1, the Labour Court has concluded that witness of Management Chandra Shekhar Nim himself has accepted that Workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and he was not paid any retrenchment compensation. No prior permission of the State Government was also sought before ordering retrenchment. The Labour Court has also found that no documentary evidence was placed on record by the Management in support of the pleadings. In view of admission of the witness of Management, Workman was found to have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Accordingly, it has been found that as Management did not pay him the compensation as provided for under section 25F of the ID Act before retrenchment, the termination was illegal. Hence ordered for reinstatement without back wages. 8. Counsel for the Management has contended that Labour Court has committed illegality having answered reference in favour of Workman as there was no material placed before it to justify the finding that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, entitle for retrenchment compensation before termination. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the Workman contended that besides the fact that witness of Management himself has admitted that workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year, no further proof was required for establishing the aforesaid fact. Further the Workman who used to sign in the muster-roll register and the same was in possession of Management, in all fairness the aforesaid document ought to have been produced before the Labour Court to negate the claim of the Workman, that having not been done, the Labour Court has rightly recorded the finding that the Workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having perused the impugned award, pleadings, evidence placed on record and submissions advanced, in the opinion of this Court, the evidence brought before the Labour Court had properly been appreciated. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Having perused the impugned award, pleadings, evidence placed on record and submissions advanced, in the opinion of this Court, the evidence brought before the Labour Court had properly been appreciated. The conclusion drawn is based on the evidence of Management witnesses. Hence, the termination without payment of compensation has rightly been found illegal retrenchment and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly answered the reference in favour of Workman. No illegality or jurisdictional error is committed by the labour Court in passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference is warranted. Writ petition is dismissed sans merits.