KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, REWA Vs. JAIPRAKASH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE set up by the workman was that he was initially appointed on 22.9.1990 on daily wage basis. On 3.11.1991, separate order was issued; he worked till 8.7.1994 as Nakedar; case of petitioner was referred for regularization to the Commissioner of Mandi, Bhopal; proposal was accepted; salary of the month of October, 1992 and July, 1993 to 9.11.1994 was not paid. Petitioner's services were terminated as per oral order, no prior notice was given, retrenchment compensation was also not paid. Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days, as such, termination is illegal and void.

(2.) KRISHI Upaj Mandi Samiti in reply to the statement of claim admitted that workman was employed on 22.9.1990 and served till December, 1991, thereafter failed to report on duty, had not served with Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti after December, 1991. Workman examined himself in support of the case. Labour Court has passed an award (Annexure 4) dated 18.5.1999. The Labour Court has found that workman has rendered the services admittedly from September, 1990 till November, 1991, thus, he has rendered the services for more than 240 days, in the said period he has served for 15 months, he was not paid retrenchment compensation, notice of retrenchment was not issued, hence, termination has been held to be illegal and void, same is in violation of provision of section 25F of ID Act, reinstatement has been ordered without back wages on the ground that workman has obtained employment as Panchayat Karmi, the award passed by learned Labour Court has been assailed in this writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that respondent has been reinstated pursuant to award (Annexure 4) passed by Labour Court. Shri J.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has submitted that burden of proof was wrongly shifted upon Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti-petitioner, as such, the award passed by Labour Court is bad in law; petitioner was not in employment after December, 1991, as such the award is bad in law, same deserves to be quashed.

(3.) SECTION 25F of the ID Act was considered by the apex Court in M/s National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others v. The State of West Bengal and another [AIR 1967 SC 1206] and it was held by the apex Court that if workman is retrenched without giving one month's notice, his wages for period of notice must be paid before he is asked to go. The apex Court has emphasized on the payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment.