MP. ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 27.3.1996 (Annexure P-XII) passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur and the order dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure P-XIII) passed by the Industrial Court dismissing its appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') filed an application under sections 31 (3) read with section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act of 1960') before the Labour Court challenging the order dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure P-II) passed by the employer terminating his services on the ground that on account of accident he sustained injuries and became disabled upto to the extent of 30%. The stand of the employee was that the action of the employer by issuing order dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure P-II) by which his services have been terminated is nothing but an order of retrenchment and since provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act of 1947') are not complied with the action of employer amounts to illegal retrenchment and, therefore, the employee is to be reinstated with back wages.

(3.) IT has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that the orders passed by both the Courts below are erroneous inasmuch as they have ignored the provisions as envisaged under section 2 (oo) (c) of the Act of 1947. According to the learned counsel on account of accident the employee sustained injuries and on the ground of continuous ill health his services have been terminated and, therefore, the action of the employer terminating the services of the employee cannot be said to be illegal retrenchment and thus both the Courts below committed substantial error of law in passing the impugned orders.