Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 347 (MP)

Anupam Ganguly v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2017-03-08

SANJAY YADAV

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Petitioner takes exception to the order-dated 30.4.2015 passed by respondent No.2-Labour Commissioner, of directing for initiation of prosecution of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has disobeyed the Award dated 15.10.2008 passed in Reference Case No.10/2004. 3. Relevant facts briefly are that the respondent No.3 who was engaged as a daily wager in the Government Women College of Arts and Commerce (Autonomous), dispensed with from service; where-against on an industrial dispute being raised, an Award came to be passed on 21.4.2008, directing his reinstatement without back wages. 4. Pertinent it is to note at this stage that the dispute raised was against Smt. K. Samad, the then Principal, Government Autonomous Mankunwar Bai Arts and Commerce Women's College, Jabalpur by name. 5. As the Award was not honoured, the respondent No.3 brought a proceeding under Section 18 read with Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereon notice was issued on the petitioner on 15.1.2015. Petitioner denied her liability on the ground that she was not a party in the proceedings. And, that she joined as Principal in June 2010. She denied of having any knowledge about the representation given by respondent on 20.10.2008. That, by order being No.1810/2015 dated 23.2.2015, respondent was given the joining. 6. The Labour Commissioner, while negativing the defence taken by the petitioner, passed the impugned order which is being challenged in the petition on the ground that the Labour Court has glossed over the fact adverted in the reply that despite the order of reinstatement and oral request made to the respondent No.3, he did not respond. It is urged that since the Award has been complied with, no action can be taken against the petitioner. Besides these submissions, it is also contended that during pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. Respondent No.3 has not filed the reply despite repeated opportunity given to him and the imposition of costs. 8. Besides these submissions, it is also contended that during pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. Respondent No.3 has not filed the reply despite repeated opportunity given to him and the imposition of costs. 8. As there is no denial of the contention raised by the petitioner that in pursuance to the Award, an order-dated 23.2.2015 has been issued and the respondent No.3 has chosen not to counter the contention in the petition and that the petitioner having retired, the impugned order-dated 30.4.2015 cannot be now given effect to; therefore, the same is set aside. 9. Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.