STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PURSHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING an award passed by the labour court Jabalpur in Reference Case No.ID18/2009 directing for reinstatement of the respondent employee without back-wages, this writ petition is filed by the State Government. Challenge to the award in question is made mainly on the ground that the employee in question is a daily wages employee and as his work was not required, therefore, his termination was proper. It is pointed out that there is a delay of more than 12 years in raising the dispute and, therefore, the award passed entertaining the reference after a period of 12 years is illegal. Finally, it is stated that the petitioner has not led adequate evidence to show that he has worked for 240 days in the calender year and, thereby, entitled for claiming the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, it is seen that as far as delay in raising the dispute is concerned, the labour court has entertained the reference after taking note of the conciliation proceedings that was also held and for the delay in raising the dispute, the same has been condoned by the labour court and as a result of the delay, the entire back-wages is denied to the petitioner. That being so, a reasonable justification is given by the labour court in condoning the delay and the labour court having denied the payment of back-wages for the entire period. On the ground of delay in raising the dispute, interference is not called for. The labour court having exercised its discretion in condoning the delay in a reasonable manner, the same does not warrant any interference. As far as the employee concerned being daily wages employees and his termination on the basis of the circular issued by the Government is concerned, admittedly the employee had worked from 1.1.1986 to 19.3.1996 and on the basis of the evidence that has came on record, it was established that the employee has been in continuous service for a period of one year as provided under Section 25 B of the I.D. Act and, therefore, termination without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act amounts to retrenchment. In doing so, the labour court has not committed any error as the finding in this regard is recorded on the basis of Evidence and material that came on record and nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to show as to how the same is perverse. It is seen from the record that the employee concerned has been in employment from 1.1.1986 upto 19.3.1996.