Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 291 (MP)

Ramkrapal Patel v. State of M. P.

2023-02-21

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-workman being aggrieved of award dated 6.8.2022/22.8.2022 (Annexure P-6) by the learned Labour Court, Sagar under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''I.D. Act'') in COCA-08/2019/I.D. Act Reference, whereby workman has been directed to be paid a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Perusal of the pleadings reveal that petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 under the Divisional Forest Office, Laundi, District Chhatarpur. In the year 2000, he was retrenched. Thereafter, reference case was filed in the year 2019. 3. In the earlier round of litigation, petitioner had filed W.P. No.2900/2017, which was returned back to the petitioner with a direction to approach the Labour Court vide order dated 28.7.2017. 4. Shri Surya Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had put in about four years of service. His retrenchment has been declared illegal by the Labour Court. Yet instead of reinstating him with full wages, it has directed to pay compensation. Prayer made by Shri Surya Kumar Patel is to enhance the compensation suitably. 5. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondentsState, in his turn, supports the award and submits that no indulgence is required in the matter. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Full Bench of this High Court in Munshi Singh v. Nagar Panchayat, 2009 (4) M.P.H.T. 352 (Full Bench) has held that there is no hard and fast rule that Court should grant relief of reinstatement with full back wages in each and every case. Court can instead of granting reinstatement, can award compensation. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 , wherein it is held that in terms of the provisions contained in section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which grants power to the Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman, direction by the Industrial Court to pay compensation without reinstatement was held to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ordering reinstatement with full back wages and had awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh ordering reinstatement with full back wages and had awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 8. In that case, facts were that workman had worked for a period from 31.12.1991 to 1.3.1994, when his services were terminated. In the present case also, the period of service of the workman is almost identical. 9. When all these facts are taken into consideration along with provisions contained in section 11-A of the I.D. Act, then award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and its quantification at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/-, cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary, calling for interference in the matter. 10. In terms of the above discussion, petition lacks merits and being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, it is directed that in case compliance is not made and awarded amount is already not paid then it be now paid within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of expiry of two months time of the date of passing of the award, till the date of actual payment. 12. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.