Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

Sun Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd v. Anil Kekra

2017-01-25

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Vivek Rusia, J. 1. With the consent of parties, petition is heard finally. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the Industrial Court. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in manufacturing and sale of drugs. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner’s company, who was terminated after domestic Enquiry. 3. Being aggrieved by his termination, he challenged the same before the labour Court. Vide order dated 17.04.2001, the labour Court held that the termination is harsh and excessive, hence, instead of directing reinstatement the employer was directed to pay compensation to the sum of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order of labour Court by filing the appeal before the Industrial Court, but the petitioner/employer did not challenged the said order. The Industrial Court vide order dated 19.09.2005 has modified the order of labour Court and in place of compensation of Rs.60,000/-, it has been directed to pay one month salary each per year served by the employee from the date of appointment, till the date of order of industrial Court i.e. order dated 19.09.2005. The respondent filed the review/clarification of the order dated 19.09.2005. Vide order dated 09.01.2006, the labour Court has in addition to one month salary of each completed year also added relief of payment of gratuity at the current rate and other terminal benefits. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2005 (not order dated 09.01.2016), the present petitioner filed a writ petition no.2031/2006(s) before this High Court. The respondent has also filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P. No.1757/2006(s) against the order of industrial Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 25.06.2010 and the petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the wages for the period of one month as indicated by the learned labour Court. It has been made clear that in case of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court within a period of two months under intimation to the respondent in both the writ petitions, petitioner shall be liable to pay the wages as indicated by the appellate court. It has been made clear that in case of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court within a period of two months under intimation to the respondent in both the writ petitions, petitioner shall be liable to pay the wages as indicated by the appellate court. Para 7 of the order is reproduced below: “In view of this, both the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part holding that the respondent in both the petitions shall be entitled and the petitioner shall be liable to pay 50% of wages for a period of one month for the period as indicated by the learned Appellate Court. It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court within a period of two months under intimation to the respondent in both the petitions, petitioner shall be liable to pay the wages as indicated by the learned Appellate Court.” 6. The petitioner did not deposited the 50% amount, as directed by the High Court within two months and filed the MCC No.511/2010 on 23.11.2010 seeking 15 days’ time to deposit the amount. The prayer made in the MCC is reproduced below -Prayer “It is therefore prayed that in the light of the aforementioned submissions this application for extension of time be allowed. The petitioner undertakes to comply with the order within a period of 15 days.” 7. The said MCC came up for hearing on 3.12.2010 and without notice to the respondent, it was disposed of by extending the time by one month for compliance of order dated 25.06.2010. The order passed in MCC is reproduced below: “The prayer in the petition is for extension of time for compliance of the order dated 25.06.2010 passed in W.P.No.2031/2006(s), whereby it was directed that compliance be made within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of accident of Senior Manager, the order could not have been complied with. In the facts and circumstances of the case petition is disposed of by extending the time by one month for compliance of order dated 25.06.2010. With the aforesaid observations MCC stands disposed of” 8. After the order passed in MCC, the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- by way of cheque on 21.12.2010. Prior to that, the petitioner also deposited Rs. 60,000/- after the order of labour Court. With the aforesaid observations MCC stands disposed of” 8. After the order passed in MCC, the petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- by way of cheque on 21.12.2010. Prior to that, the petitioner also deposited Rs. 60,000/- after the order of labour Court. Thus in total, the petitioner paid amount of Rs.1,62,000/- to the respondent. 9. The respondent approached the labour Court by filing an application under Section 108 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short herein after referred as “the MPLR Act” alleging that the petitioner did not deposited the amount within the period of two months as directed by the High Court vide order dated 25.06.2010, therefore, he is entitled for the amount of compensation as directed by the industrial Court vide order dated 19.09.2005 and 16.01.2006. The petitioner filed reply to the said application contending that the entire amount as per direction given by the High Court in MCC No.511/2010 has been deposited before the labour Court and that has been paid to the respondent. 10. Vide order dated 09.07.2013, the learned labour court dismissed the application filed under Section 108 of the Act on the ground that High Court has granted one month’s time in MCC No.511/2010 and within the said period, the amount has been deposited, therefore, the period would be computed from 03.12.2010 and not from 25.06.2010. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of labour Court dated 09.07.2013, the respondent preferred an appeal before the industrial Court. The Industrial Court has partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the labour Court with a direction to the petitioner and respondent (i.e. employer and employees) to submit their calculation sheet and decide the same in accordance with law. The industrial Court has found that the present petitioner/employer has not filed any petition against the order dated 09.01.2006 passed by the industrial Court, therefore, the said order has become final so far and in absence of filing any calculation sheet, it cannot be believed that the gratuity and other retiral dues has been paid or not. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2015, the petitioner/employee has filed the present petition before this Court. 12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2015, the petitioner/employee has filed the present petition before this Court. 12. The petitioner has challenged the order of industrial Court on the ground that the labour Court, vide order dated 09.07.2013 has rightly rejected the application under Section 108 of the Act because the petitioner has paid his entire dues to the respondent within the extended time granted by the High Court in M.C.C. No.511/2010. 13. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 03.12.2010, passed in M.C.C.No.511/2010, the High Court has extended the time by one month for compliance of order dated 25.06.2010 and within the said period, the petitioner has deposited Rs.1,02,000/- in addition to Rs.60,000/- which is 50% of the wages for the period of one month for the period indicated by the industrial Court. 14. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has vehemently argued before this Court that the order in MCC by the High Court was passed without notice to him and one month time extended is to be computed from 25.06.2010 and not from 03.12.2010. Since, the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount even within 3 months from 25.06.2010, therefore, they are liable to pay entire amount as directed by the industrial court not @ 50%. He has further submitted that the order dated 09.01.2006, the amount of gratuity and other retiral dues has not been paid and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The controversy remains in this petition which is required to be decided is whether the High Court has extended the time of 1 month to deposit the compensation is to be calculated from 25.06.2010 or from 03.12.2010 i.e. when the MCC No.511/2010 was disposed of and whether the petitioner has paid the gratuity amount and other retiral dues as per the order dated 09.01.2006. 16. It is not disputed that neither petitioner nor respondent have filed their calculation sheet before the labour Court in an application under section 108 of the MPLR Code. 17. Industrial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015 has rightly held that both the parties have not filed the calculation sheet and they were rightly directed to file before the labour court, therefore, the order of industrial dated 30.11.2015 to that extend is upheld in this petition. 18. 17. Industrial Court, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015 has rightly held that both the parties have not filed the calculation sheet and they were rightly directed to file before the labour court, therefore, the order of industrial dated 30.11.2015 to that extend is upheld in this petition. 18. It is correct that the High Court in both the writ petitions has directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the monthly wages for the each year served by the respondent and if the amount is not paid in 2 months, then the petitioner is liable to pay wages as indicated by the appellate court i.e. full wages. Vide order dated 03.12.2010 passed in MCC No.511/2010, the High Court has extended the time of 1 month for compliance of order dated 25.06.2010. When MCC was filed on 23.11.2010 the 2 months’ time has already been expired and when the MCC was disposed of on 03.12.2010 even one month extra time was also expired. It means no purpose would be served by extending 1 month’s time from 25.06.2010 because even 1 month’s time has already expired in addition to the 2 months i.e. original period. 19. The word which has been used by the High Court “by extending the time by one month to comply the order dated 25.06.2010”, means that vide order dated 25.06.2010, the High Court has granted 1 month’s time for compliance of order dated 25.06.2010 and within that extended period, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- by way of order dated 21.12.2010 before the labour Court. 20. Shri Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if it is treated that time has been extended to comply the order but as directed by the High Court in order dated 25.06.2010, no intimation was given to the respondent for depositing the said amount because the Division Bench has said that payment be made within two months under intimation to the respondent. In application under Section 108 of the Act, the respondent himself has admitted that the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- on 21.12.2010 and information to that effect was given to him on 10.02.2011. Initially, the time was given to deposit the amount within two months and later on after 6 months, again one month’s time was given by the High Court, hence the word “under intimation to respondent” has lost its significance. Initially, the time was given to deposit the amount within two months and later on after 6 months, again one month’s time was given by the High Court, hence the word “under intimation to respondent” has lost its significance. As held above, two months’ time has been extended by the High Court and the petitioner deposited the amount before the labour Court and give intimation to the respondent, therefore, the labour Court has rightly dismissed the application under Section 108 of the Act. 21. The only controversy remains is whether the petitioner is liable to be paid gratuity and other retiral dues. Vide order dated 09.01.2006, the industrial Court has directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity at the current rates and other retiral dues to the respondent. The petitioner did not challenged the said order of industrial Court before the High Court in writ petition, it means petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of industrial Court directing him to pay gratuity & other retiral dues. The petitioner as well as the respondent did not filed the calculation sheet, therefore, the petitioner and respondent are directed to approach the labour Court along with their calculation sheet. Both the parties are directed to appear befor the labour Court on 20.02.2017 in Case No.45/MPLR/2011 along with their calculation sheets. Thereafter, labour Court, Dewas is directed to decide the case afresh within 60 days. 22. With the aforesaid remarks, the writ petition is partly allowed. 23. No order as to costs. 24. If the labour court find that the gratuity and other retiral dues has not been paid then labour Court shall directed the petitioner/employer to pay the said dues to the respondent along with interest @ 8% per annum within 30 days therefore, The petition is allowed partly.