Mukesh Kumar Sharma and four Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and two Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the orders, Annexures P/1 to P/5, dated 24.3.2004, whereby the petitioners'' orders of re-engagement/re-instatement dated 22.3.2004 were cancelled. Admitted facts are that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages by the respondent-department. Their services were terminated by giving them retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents later on issued a circular dated 21.1.2004, Annexure P-8, and pursuant to that circular, the petitioners were re-engaged/re-instated by the department by communication dated 22.3.2004. This order of re-engagement was cancelled by impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-5. It is assailed by Shri Pawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds - (i) the impugned order entails civil consequences and, therefore, could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice, (ii) even the enabling circular dated 21.1.2004 contains a provision for re-engagement of employees who were granted retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. In addition, it is argued that no fresh policy of the Government was filed to demonstrate that the Government has decided otherwise for retrenched employees who were given compensation.

Mrs. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the order and submits that at the time of termination retrenchment compensation in accordance with Labour Laws was paid to the petitioners. Petitioners have no right to continue with the department.

In the opinion of this Court, the contention of Shri Pawan Dwivedi has force inasmuch as it cannot be disputed that the circular dated 21.1.2004 (para 3) makes it clear that the re-engagement was made permissible for both the sets of employees whether terminated without compensation or with compensation. It is apt to quote para 3 of this circular, which reads as under:-

Thus, it is clear that the re-engagement was made permissible by the department for those employees also who have been given retrenchment compensation. No other policy or circular was brought to the notice of this Court, which shows that petitioners are governed by any other provision/circular. Apart from this, the impugned orders take away the right of livelihood of the petitioners and in that situation, the minimum requirement was to follow the principles of natural justice. On aforesaid grounds, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve to succeed. Even otherwise, the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-5, were stayed by this Court way back on 13.4.2004 and petitioners are continuing in employment on the strength of the said stay order. The impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-5, run contrary to the enabling provision/circular dated 21.1.2004 and violates the principles of natural justice. For these reasons, I find no reason to sustain the orders, Annexures P-1 to P-5. Resultantly, the impugned orders, Annexures P-1 to P-5, are set aside. Petition is allowed. No costs.