M.P. Electricity Board And Others vs Subhash Kumar Choubey

Petitioners have filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by award dated 03.10.2002 passed in Case No.177/92/ MPIR by the Labour Court, Jabalpur.

Respondent-Subhash Kumar Choubey filed an application under Section 31(3) of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. He claimed that termination of his services was illegal. It was submitted by him that he was engaged in the institution on 06.02.1991 and regularly worked till 01.10.1991. On 01.10.1991 he was transferred from Katni to C.S.D. Dindori. The said transfer order was amended and he was transferred from C.S.D., Dindori to C.S.D., Sihora. He gave his joining at Sihora on 11.10.1991 and worked there till 10.12.1991. On 10.12.1991, Assistant Engineer of MPEB, Sihora orally terminated his services giving reason that there was no sanctioned post. It was also averred by workman that some of the daily wager, who were junior to him are still working and has been regularized by the petitioners. Therefore, his termination order is bad and he may be reinstated in service. Learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service without backwages.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that services of respondent-workman was not terminated. After his transfer, respondent himself stopped coming to work. It is also submitted that respondent was a daily wager and therefore, if he did not appear for work, no departmental enquiry could have been initiated against him. Daily wagers are engaged, if there is requirement of their work in the institution. Respondent-workman is not entitled for reinstatement, as he himself stopped coming to work. Counsel appearing for the petitioners had argued that Labour Court had committed an error in holding that it was the duty of the employer to issue charge-sheet and to initiate departmental enquiry in the matter and thereafter, order of termination ought to have been passed against the respondent. Labour Court had committed an error in holding that the provisions of retrenchment under Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been followed and therefore, the respondent is entitled for reinstatement without backwages. In view of above, he seeks quashment of the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court.

Considered the arguments of both the parties.

On going through the evidence, which is available on record, it is found that one witness was examined by the petitioners in this case namely Narayan Raghuwanshi. In his statement, he was unable to tell whether the respondent himself stopped coming to work or he was terminated. Petitioners have failed to adduce evidence that respondent himself stopped coming to work and the pleadings of the petitioners were not supported by the documentary evidence. The witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he cannot tell whether respondent himself stopped coming to work or he was terminated.

Considering the cross-examination of Narayan Raghuwanshi, petitioners were unable to prove their case that respondent-workman himself stopped coming to work. Even if the arguments of petitioners' counsel is considered to be correct that there is no necessity to issue charge-sheet to a daily wager as he is not holder of any civil post and he is called to work in the department on availability of work, then also it cannot be said that there was any fault or illegality in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Petitioners have failed to establish their case that respondent-workman himself stopped coming to work. Since there was no notice or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice to the respondent-workman, there is violation of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court.

Respondent-workman has not shown that he was gainfully employed during the period when he was not engaged by the petitioners for work. In absence of such evidence on record, learned Labour Court has rightly reinstated the respondent-workman without backwages.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is dismissed. The award passed by the learned Labour Court so far reinstatement of respondent-workman is concerned, is affirmed.