State of M.P. and another vs Vijay Bahadur Singh

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 05/01/2015 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satna.

The respondent was engaged as daily rated worker in the petitioners-establishment in the year 1986. The respondent had continuously worked satisfactory upto 25/07/2005, however, without assigning any reasons, services of the petitioners were terminated. Before termination, the services of the respondent, neither any enquiry was conducted nor the mandatory provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with. Respondent, therefore, filed an application for reference before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner has made a reference for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Satna.

The petitioners appeared and filed their written statement. It has been stated that the respondent was engaged as daily rated worker on 07/12/2004 on the basis of availability of work and budgetary provision. The petitioner continued to work upto 22/03/2005. Thereafter respondent absconded from the work place and despite various notices, the respondent never approached to the authority for further engagement as daily rated worker in the petitioner-department. As the respondent had wilfully absconded, therefore, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service.

The Labour Court framed issues and after recording statement has passed an award dated 05/01/2015 (delivered on 11/02/2015 thereby directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent without back wages. Being aggrieved by that award, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioners argued that the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and arbitrary.

He submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider that the respondent was never appointed on any sanctioned vacant post but he was engaged temporarily on the basis of requirement of job and budgetary provision in the petitioner-department. She further argued that the respondent wilfully absconded from the duty and despite notices did not join the

duty. It has further been submitted that it was for the respondent to prove that he was engaged on any sanctioned vacant post by due procedure of selection. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has erred in not relying upon the statement of S.K. Khare, the then SDO (Forest), Production, Sehore whereby on the basis of muster roll, it has been shown that the respondent worked for 155 days in a calendar year of 1997. She further submitted that the Labour Court while passing the impugned award has not properly considered the evidence produced by the petitioner. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous.

The respondent has filed reply and supported the award passed by the Labour Court. He submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is based on cogent reasons. So far as notice which said to have been issued to the

respondent, he submitted that such notice bears no acknowledgment of the respondent. The amount of Rs.5520/- in lieu of payment of 21 days salary for the month of March has been paid and acknowledged by his wife Smt. Babli Singh with whom the respondent was not enjoying cordial relation because of that reason his wife instituted proceeding under Section 498-A of the IPC. The respondent was initially prosecuted by the JMFC, Rampur Baghelan and he was convicted vide order dated 26/06/2012, however, acquitted by the judgment dated 14/07/2014. The acknowledgment of payment of salary of 21 days to the respondent's wife is of no assistance to the petitioners. Services of the respondent have been terminated in terms of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said Section requires issuance of three month's detailed notice specifying the reasons for retrenchment and/or payment of salary in lieu of notice after approval of the State is a sign-qua-non which has not been complied with nor the permission of appropriate Govt. has been taken before issuance of impugned removal or dismissal order, therefore, the Labour Court in para-6 of the Award has rightly held that the provisions of Section 25-N of the I.D.

Act, 1947 has not ben complied with. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners had already reinstated the service of the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the respondent was engaged as daily rated employees in the petitioner-department. His services were, discontinued on 26/07/2005. Being aggrieved by that, the respondent has filed an application before the Labour Commissioner for making a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the ID Act. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court where the respondent has filed a statement of claim and the petitioners have filed written statement denying the allegations made in the statement of claim. The Labour Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence by both parties has passed an award dated 05/01/2015 thereby directing the petitioners to reinstate the services of the petitioner without back wages.

The Labour Court has passed an award on the ground that before terminating the services of the petitioner, the provisions of Section 25-N (1) (a)(b) of the ID Act were not complied with by the petitioners. Section 25-N of the I.D.

Act reads as under :

"25N. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen- (1) No workman employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year uner an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given three months' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and

(b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government by that Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in the section referred to as the specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf."

As per the said provision, before terminating the services of the employee, three months' notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has to be specified. It has further been submitted that before passing the said order, prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the State Government is required to be obtained.

In the present case from perusal of the order dated 26/07/2005 (Ex.D/3), it is clear that before terminating the services of the respondent under Section 25-N of the ID Act, one month's notice has been given to the petitioner and approval of the appropriate Government was not taken before passing the impugned order of termination and, therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned award. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere into the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.