RAM DAS SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid petitions i.e. W.P.No.10838/2008 and W.P.No.11253/2008. For the sake of convenience, the facts, as detailed in W.P.No.10838/2008 are being taken note of.

(2.) By way of this petition, petitioners are assailing the impugned order by which, the petitioners' services were terminated without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioners herein were employed on daily wages against the post of "Mali" in the years which are mentioned in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of writ petitions. All the petitioners approached the Labour Court seeking their classification as "Permanent Employee". The dispute was raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court and unfortunately, during pendency before the Labour Court, the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without seeking prior concurrence of the Labour Court in terms of Sec. 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the order of termination is being assailed in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the order impugned passed by the respondents is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed mainly on the ground that while passing the order impugned, the respondents have violated the statutory provisions contained in Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondents without seeking leave of the Labour Court in terms of Sec. 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, proceeded to dispense with the services of the petitioners. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is bounden duty of the employer to give one months notice indicating the reasons for retrenchment when the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice. It is further contended by the counsels that in the present case, the impugned order was not served upon the present petitioners nor the wages were paid to them, therefore, the order impugned was unsustainable having been passed in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25- F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also contended by the counsels that as dispute before the Labour Court regarding classification of the present petitioners as "Permanent Employee" was already pending, there could not have been any termination of services of the present petitioners without prior concurrence of the Labour Court in terms of Sec. 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of their contentions, counsels have placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Jha and Others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 619 and Raj Kumar vs. Director of Education reported in (2016) 6 SCC 541 and submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioners deserve to be reinstated.