Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 58 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bapulal

2017-01-11

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : VIVEK RUSIA, J. 1. The petitioner/State of M.P. has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the award dated 24.9.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which, the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,11,002/- as arrears of wages from 1.1.2002 to 9.7.2006. 2. The respondent approached the Labour Court by filing an application under section 33-C (2) of the I.D Act. According to the respondent, he was appointed as Gangman in the year 1969 in Sub-Division, PWD, Shujalpur. After completion of 30 years of service, vide order No. 2567 dated 29.12.2001, he was retired from service. 3. Being aggrieved by the premature retirement, he approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore by way of Writ Petition No. 2531/2006, in which, vide order dated 11.5.2006, this Court has set aside the order of retirement dated 29.12.2001 and he was directed to be reinstated into the service with consequential benefit. In compliance of the order of the M.P. High Court, the respondent gave joining in the office on 10.7.2006 and he was given joining on 12.2.2008, but back wages were not be paid to him. 4. According to the respondent, after completing 25 years of service as contingency Gangman, he was entitled for pay-scale of Rs.2550 3200 w.e.f. 1.1.2002, but the pay was not fixed and he was not granted the benefit. He was also not granted the benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.2006, therefore, he claimed the arrears of wages w.e.f. 1.1.2002, and the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission total Rs.2,11,002/- by way of filing application under section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court. 5. After notice, the petitioner filed written statement, in which the entire claim of the respondent was denied by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application as time barred and submitted that he did not give joining and only after notice dated 20.2.2008 issued by the petitioner, he gave joining, therefore, he is not entitled for payment of wages for the entire period under the principle of "no work, no pay". In support of his claim, respondent/Bapulal examined himself and one Tilakraj Kaur. The Government did not examine any witness and did not produce any document. 6. In support of his claim, respondent/Bapulal examined himself and one Tilakraj Kaur. The Government did not examine any witness and did not produce any document. 6. Vide award dated 24.11.2012, his entire claim was allowed by the Labour Court directing the Government to pay the amount of Rs.2,11,002/- with interest. 7. Being aggrieved by the award, the State Government preferred this writ petition before this Court on the ground that the respondent did not work for the period from 1.1.2002 to 9.7.2006, therefore, he is not entitled for the arrears of the wages under the principle of "no work, no pay." 8. That it is not disputed that the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 24.12.2001. he approached the High Court, Indore Bench by way of writ petition No. 2531/2005 and vide order dated 11.5.2006, the Writ Petition was disposed of in light of the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya and two others v. State of M.P. and others, 2006 (109) FI.R 261 (F.B.) (M.P.). and the order passed by the petitioner, by which, the respondent was retired after completion of 30 years of service or attaining the age of 60 years, was quashed and the petitioner was directed to extend similar benefit to the respondent in light of the judgment delivered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya and other (supra). In compliance of the said order, according to the respondent, he gace joining on 10.7.2006. Vide order dated 25.2.2010, after completing 25 years a service, he was regularized against the post of contingency Gangman w.e.f 1.1.2002, but he was denied actual wages of the said post, because he did not work. Vide letter dated 20.2.2008, the respondent gave his joining in the office of Sub-Division, PWD, Shujalpur and his joining was accepted in compliance of the Court's order passed in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, accordingly, he was pail wages. Now, the question would be, whether the respondent is entitled for arrears of wages from 24.2.2001 till he gave joining on 24.2.2008. The Labour Court has directed the State Government to pay the wages from 2001. 9. That, after the order dated 29.12.2001, when the respondent was retired from service, he himself approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition in the year 2005. The Labour Court has directed the State Government to pay the wages from 2001. 9. That, after the order dated 29.12.2001, when the respondent was retired from service, he himself approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition in the year 2005. For the period of almost four years, he did not challenge the order of retirement. He filed the Writ Petition that the benefit granted in the case of Vishu Mutiya and others (supra) be also extended in his case. The writ petition was disposed of at motion hearing itself and the order of retirement was quashed and in light of the order passed, according to the respondent, he gave joining on 10.7.2006, but he was granted the benefit w.e.f. 20.2.2008. When the respondent himself has challenged the order dated 24.12.2001, after the period of four years, therefore, he cannot claim the wages for the said period under the principle of "no work, no pay." Had he raised the dispute immediately in the year 2001, or approached the High Court by way of writ petition in the year 2001, then in such circumstances, he would have entitled for the wages, but when he himself filed the writ petition after the period of four years, therefore, he is not entitled for the said benefit. 10. After the order dated 11.5.2006, according to the respondent, he gave joining on 10.7.2006 with letter, which is filed and marked as Annexure-P/2 before the Labour Court. In this letter, there is receiving by the office of Sub-Division, Shujalpur and no evidence has been laid down by the petitioner to controvert this fact, therefore, the joining of the respondent ought to have beer, treated from 10.7.2006, therefore, the respondent-is entitled for wages from 10.7.2006 and not from the date of retirement i.e. 24/12/2001 and other consequential benefits like revision of 5th and 6th pay. The Labour Court while deciding the application under section 33-C(2) of the I.D Act has not considered this fact that the respondent himself has approached the High Court after the period of four years. Under the provisions of section 33-C(2) of the I.D Act, the application is maintainable and is required to be filed before the Labour Court, when the workman is entitled to receive the from the employer any money or benefit, which is acceptable to be computed in terms of money. Under the provisions of section 33-C(2) of the I.D Act, the application is maintainable and is required to be filed before the Labour Court, when the workman is entitled to receive the from the employer any money or benefit, which is acceptable to be computed in terms of money. If any question is arose as to amount of money due or to the amount at which the said benefit should be computed, this question may also be decided by the Labour Court. 11. In the present case, the order of retirement was set aside by the High Court vide order dated 11.5.2006 and the direction was given to extend the benefit of judgment of Full Bench, but the fact remains that the respondent himself has approached the High Court in the year 2005, after four years of his retirement, therefore, while deciding the benefit of this intervening period, the Labour Court ought to have decided whether the benefit to the employee can be computed in terms of the money. In cross-examination, the respondent has not answered any question put by the Counsel for the employer. He has stated that he is an illiterate and is not aware what is written in the affidavit and even in the Ex-P/2. In cross-examination, the respondent has not answered any question put by the Counsel for the employer. He has stated that he is an illiterate and is not aware what is written in the affidavit and even in the Ex-P/2. The entire cross-examination is reproduced below : izkFkhZ dk dwV ijh{k.k izdj.k dzekad 160@11@vkbZ0Mh0,DV fnuakd 22-01-2013 dks izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esjs }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks lgh ,oe~ lR; gS ftl ij iSjk yxk;rk gSA lk{kh dks 'kiFk fnyk;h x;hA dwV ijh{k.k }kjk vf/koDrk Jh fnyhi osn; ds iz'uks ij%& eSa is ;kn ugh gS bl ckor~ eSaus dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh gS vkns'k dzekad 1114 D;k gS eq>s ugha ekyweA 'kklu ds ifji= eq>s ugha ekyweA osrueku dc&dc yxk bldh tkudkjh ugha gSA Nvok osru esa D;k osru jgk gS eSa ugh crk ldrk gwaA esjs dks fdruk osru feyrk gS eq>s ugh ekywe u gh eSus dksbZ osru iphZ is'k dh gSA esjk osru cSad [kkrk esa vkrk gSA eSaus cSad Mk;jh yk;k gwaA esjk 1-01- 2002 ls 9 -07-2006 rd esjk D;k D;k osru jgk gS eSa ugha crk ldrkA U;k;ky; }kjk C;kt dk gh vkns'k ugha fn;k x;k gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjk dksbZ jkf'k ugh fudyrh gSA jkf'k dh x.kuk fdl izdkj dh x;h gS eq>s ugha ekyweA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSA >wBk C;ku ns jgk gwaA iqu% ijh{k.k dqN ughaA lk{kh dks i<+dj lquk;k lgh ik;kA dYiuk xkSM+ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vUrxZr vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e Je U;k;ky] mTtSu e/; izns'kA 12. The State Government/petitioner has also filed reply to the application before the Labour Court very carelessly. The pleading in the reply has not been verified by SDO. The name of SDO has not been mentioned, which is highly improper. Name, age and father's name are required to be mentioned in verification of the pleading. No witness has been examined on behalf of the Department before the Labour Court. 13. Since the respondent himself approached after four years before the High Court, therefore, the Government cannot be compelled to pay him wages for the delay committed by the respondent himself, therefore, the impugned award dated 24.9.2014 is modified to the extend that the respondent be paid wages from the date, when he gave joining on 10.7.2006. 13. Since the respondent himself approached after four years before the High Court, therefore, the Government cannot be compelled to pay him wages for the delay committed by the respondent himself, therefore, the impugned award dated 24.9.2014 is modified to the extend that the respondent be paid wages from the date, when he gave joining on 10.7.2006. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to quantify the amount of wages and other consequential benefit from the date, when he gave joining in the year 2006. 14. In view of the aforesaid present writ petition is partly allowed. CC as per rules. Petition Partly Allowed.