RAKESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the joint request of the parties, this writ petition WP No. 2549/2003. is analogously heard with Writ Petition No. 2354/2003. Accordingly, this order will govern the disposal of both the matters. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are taken from Writ Petition No. 2549/2003.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was initially appointed on 6.9.1989 as a Pump Attendant, was terminated which was assailed by him by filing an application before the Labour Court under section 313. of the M.P.Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court by order dated 7.10.1996 Annexure P-1. directed the petitioner's reinstatement without back wages. The appeals are preferred against the said order by the petitioner and the employer before Industrial Court. By order dated 2.5.1997 Annexure P-2. the Industrial Court decided both the appeals aforesaid. Petitioner's appeal is allowed by granting him back wages and appeal of the employer whereby reinstatement was challenged was rejected. This order of Industrial Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the employer by filing Writ Petition No. 722/1998 before this Court, which was dismissed on 28.3.2002. The respondents reinstated the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-8, whereby it is directed that in obedience of court's order the petitioner be reinstated with back wages and then his services were terminated as per law.

(3.) SMT . Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate supported the order and submits that it is indefeasible right of the employer to retrench the employee in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no interference is warranted by this Court. She relied on 2007. 1 SCC 408 Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd...