STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petitioner, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of order dated 30-11-2004 (Annexure P-1), by which, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the employees/respondents No. 2 to 41. Relevant facts necessary for decision of the case are that the respondents No. 2 to 41 were employed on daily wage basis by the petitioner to work in its office. While the respondents/employees were continuing, their services were terminated with effect from 1-7-1988. On industrial dispute being raised by the retrenched employees, reference was made to the Labour Court. Vide order dated 21-6-1991 passed in Case No. 12/89/I.D. (Reference) Act, the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement with 50% backwages. The petitioner challenged this order as also by the respondent employees through their Union by filing their respective petitions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Both writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 6-10-1994 (Annexure P-3). Against the said order, S.L.P. was preferred by the State, which too was dismissed on 28-2-1995 (Annexure P-4).

(2.) In compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner reinstated the respondent employees on 4-2-1993.

(3.) The State took a policy decision vide its circular dated 27-1-2000 (Annexure P-5) to terminate daily wage employees, who were appointed after 31-12-1988. The State issued circular on 24-7-2000 (Annexure P-7) clarifying as to who would be treated as working on 31-12-1988. The petitioner treated respondent employees as having been employed on daily wage basis after 31-12-1988 and their services were terminated, after giving a month's notice along with the retrenchment compensation and gratuity. This action of the petitioner was again challenged giving rise to a dispute and on dispute being referred to the Labour Court, the impugned award was passed on 30-11-2004 (Annexure P-l) directing reinstatement of respondent employees though without backwages. It is this award, which is under challenge in this writ petition.