Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 604 (MP)

Mukund Nayak v. Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam

2019-08-26

SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER 1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution is invoked by the petitioner-workman assailing the award dated 28.5.2018 vide P-1 passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the ID Act) by the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior (M.P.) while answering the reference as regards legality and validity of the termination of services of the workman after serving with the employer/respondent No. 1 for 9 months and 21 days, and holding the termination to be unlawful retrenchment in violation of the provision of section 25-F of the ID Act and directing for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal. 3. The workman-petitioner was engaged by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior to cater to the emergent situation of shortage of hands arisen from retirement of number of regular employees of Class-IV category in the Engineering Department of Public Works of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Thus, it is evident that the workman was appointed temporarily to fill up the gap created from frequent retirements and non-recruitment of regular employees. In sum and substance, the appointment was temporary and adhoc in nature. 3.1 However, since the workman was found to have completed 240 days immediately prior to his termination on 31.3.2016, the Labour Court held that termination was unlawful retrenchment having been made in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the ID.Act. 3.2 However, the Labour Court found that the appointment of the workman was not in accordance with the procedure established by law and was temporary and thus came to the conclusion that the workman could not establish that his appointment was lawful and was thus compelled to hold that it would be inappropriate to direct for reinstatement. 3.3 However, since the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act were found to be breached by employer while terminating workman, the Labour Court instead of directing for reinstatement adopted alternative course of compensation which was quantified at Rs. 50,000/-. 4. This Court sees no reason after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties to interfere in the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court except the quantum of compensation arrived at. 0 4.1 Undoubtedly, the services rendered by petitioner-workman were not regular and were only adhoc in nature. 50,000/-. 4. This Court sees no reason after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties to interfere in the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court except the quantum of compensation arrived at. 0 4.1 Undoubtedly, the services rendered by petitioner-workman were not regular and were only adhoc in nature. The induction of workman in employment was held to be not preceded by following the procedure established by law. More so, the petitioner has made statement in his statement of claim in para 13 that he is not gainfully employed which was subsequently supported by his affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 CPC that he is not gainfully employed after termination of his services. Considering the period of short absence after termination during when the workman has stated on oath that he was not gainfully employed and there is no rebuttal by the employer and there is an interregnum of two (2) years between the termination and the impugned award, this Court is of the considered view that in the present era of inflationary trends and rising price index with the value of currency rapidly falling by every passing day, quantum of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is insufficient. 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman in support of the contention that the Labour Court in the given facts and circumstances was not justified in directing compensation in lieu of reinstatement, has cited the case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others ( AIR 1979 SC 75 ). 4.3 In the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd (supra) dealt with the question of entitlement to full back wages or not when the termination is held illegal and reinstatement is ordered. The apex Court was not dealing with the justifiability of adopting alternative course of pecuniary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This essence behind the Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. was noticed by this Court in one of it's recent decision rendered on 28.2.2019 in W.P. 8715/16 (Arun Kumar Dixit v. Scindia Kanya Vidhyalay and another) and W.P. 192/2017 (Sciendia Kanya Vidhyalay and another v. Arun Kumar Dixit). While doing so in the said decision this Court was also of the same view in regard to the Division Bench decision rendered on 2.4.2018 in W.A.60/2018 (Nagar Palika Parishad Banmore and others v. Mohammad Shakil). While doing so in the said decision this Court was also of the same view in regard to the Division Bench decision rendered on 2.4.2018 in W.A.60/2018 (Nagar Palika Parishad Banmore and others v. Mohammad Shakil). More so, the decision dated 28.2.2019 in W.P. 8715/16 of this Court was upheld by order dated 3.4.2019 while disposing of W.A. 450/19 (Arun Kumar Dixit v. Scindia Kanya Vidhyalay and another) and W.A. 556/19 (Sciendia Kanya Vidhyalay and another v. Arun Kumar Dixit) to the extent it relates to the grant of quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, due to abolition of post. 5. Herein, the extraordinary circumstances justifying adoption of alternative mode of pecuniary compensation in lieu of reinstatement is the temporary nature of work and short service tenure of only 9 months and 21 days for which workman was in employment with the employer, that dissuades this Court from disturbing the impugned findings of the Labour Court. 6. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate that the petitioner workman is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) in place of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid to the workman within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. No cost.