HARIRAM SEN Vs. M.P.HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 8.8.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Sagar, whereby the claim made by the petitioner for reinstatement in service has been denied. It is contended by the petitioner that he was employed in the services of the respondents with effect from 2.4.1992 and worked as a Choukidar continuously. However, vide order dated 25.2.2000, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with with effect from 29.2.2000. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging such an action before this Court. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court. A dispute was raised before the competent Labour Court as a reference was made by the appropriate Government. The petitioner submitted his statement of claim categorically contending that provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity), were not followed while retrenching the petitioner, no compensation was paid to him. No notice of retrenchment was given and, as such, the order was bad in law. It is contended that the reference was entertained and respondents were called upon to file their statements of claim. Though they filed statement of claim contending inter alia that they have complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, but no evidence to that effect was produced by them before the Labour Court. However, without appreciating the evidence available on record, the claim made by the petitioner was rejected, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

(2.) Upon notice of the writ petition, the respondents have entered appearance before this Court. However, no return whatsoever has been filed by them. Orally at the time of hearing, it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that since on the evidence of the petitioner itself, it was found that the payment of wages in lieu of notice was offered to the petitioner on the date of order, compensation calculated payable to the petitioner was also offered to the petitioner, but the same was refused by him, therefore, the cheques were sent to the petitioner along with the order of termination of services. It is, thus, contended that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with and rightly appreciating the evidence available on record, the Labour Court has refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. It is contended that this Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence recorded by the Labour Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is contended that there is no force in the writ petition. The same deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the Labour Court.