MPMKVV CO. LTD. Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner/employer being aggrieved by the Award dtd. 31/1/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in Case No.24/A/I.D.Act/2016 (Reference), by which the termination of the services of the respondent has been held to be bad and direction has been issued for reinstatement alongwith 25% backwages.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that initially, the respondent/workman was engaged as Steno-typist in the respondent/department in the year 2007 and his services were terminated on 28/9/2009 by an oral order. Against the said termination, a Writ Petition No.5657 of 2015(S) was filed by the respondent/workman before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 14/10/2015, with a liberty to the respondent/employee to raise an industrial dispute and on the basis of the said liberty, the respondent had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Indore, where conciliation proceedings ended into failure and the case was referred to Labour Court No.2, Gwalior for adjudication of the industrial dispute. The terms of reference before the Labour Court is reproduced below:-

(3.) After the aforesaid reference, the learned Labour Court registered the case and issued notice to the parties for filing statement of claims. The employee filed statement of claim alleging that since he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year therefore, his services could not have been retrenched without payment of compensation as well as without following any procedure of law, a claim was raised to reinstate him into the service with full back-wages. The petitioner/department filed a reply alleging that there was no regular appointment given to the respondent in accordance with service Rules and neither any advertisement was issued nor eligible persons were considered alongwith the respondent/employee at the time of his appointment in the year 2007, rather his appointment has all along been shown to be for a fixed period subject to extensions and such further continuation for a fixed period, without following the procedure prescribed under the rules and without allowing other eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for regular appointment, thus, he had no right to the post. After appreciating the evidence and perusing the record, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned award dtd. 31/1/2023 observing that since termination of the respondent/employee, who has worked more than 08 years, was illegal and was not proper, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement in service alongwith 20% back-wages. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid the Award, the petitioner/employer has filed the present petition before this Court seeking following reliefs: