M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PHOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner is to an order of Industrial Court as an appellate Court which in turn affirm the order of Labour Court against the Petitioner.

(2.) Respondent filed a dispute under Sec. 31 (3) M.P. Industrial Relations Act before Labour Court against the petitioner and sought quashing of two orders dated 25.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by Labour Court Ujjain and order dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure P-7), passed by Industrial Court, Indore, as an appellate Court. By this application, the respondent sought to challenge his termination inter alia on the ground that he was appointed way back in the year 1992 and had acquired the status of permanency by rendering continuous service for more than a period of one year. He also complained that before terminating his service, no inquiry was held. No charge-sheet was given and nor any retrenchment compensation was paid as a pre-condition to terminate the service. According to respondent, since he has completed 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year and therefore, his services could not have been terminated without following the due procedure prescribed under the Labour Laws, which has referred supra.

(3.) The Board (petitioner herein) filed a reply, but did not lead evidence to support their stand whereas, the respondent, who was applicant before the Labour Court lead evidence in support of his case. The Labour Court vide its order dated 25.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the respondent with full back-wages. It was held that termination order passed by the petitioner Board in relation to respondent was bad in law in as much as the same was in contravention of the principle of natural justice, no charge-sheet, nor any inquiry was held and nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to be respondents. As a result, while allowing the application directed the petitioner Board to reinstate the respondent on payment full back-wages. The petitioner felt aggrieved filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. By impugned order, the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Labour Court was upheld. It is against these two orders, the Board (petitioner herein) is in writ under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.