Shiv Kumar Pathak vs State of M.P.

The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 10-09-2012 passed in writ petition No. 6143/2012 (s). The appellant challenged the order dated 16-08-2012 (Annexure P-1) filed along with writ petition). By the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 2 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti terminated the services of the appellant by way of retrenchment after following the provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act and also awarded retrenchment compensation.

Earlier, the appellant raised an Industrial Dispute in regard to his termination of services. The labour Court vide order dated 26-07-2010 answered the reference in favour of the appellant and held that he is eligible for reinstatement with back wages, that was upheld by the writ court. However, a liberty was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order. Thereafter, order dated 16-08-2012 (Annexure P-1) was passed. That, was challenged by the appellant before the writ Court. The writ court vide order dated 10-09-2012 in writ petition No. 6412/2012(S) has held that the appellant has a remedy to approach before the labour court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and refused to entertain the writ petition.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondents did not follow the procedure of Section of 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and the persons who were engaged subsequently to the appellant, are still working. That point is required to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the writ court has rightly held that the appellant has a remedy to approach before the labour court. In our opinion, the award is in accordance with law. If the appellant raises any industrial dispute, the appropriate authority shall decide the same as early as possible in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of.