AYUKT INDORE NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the propriety, tenability and validity of the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the labour Court, Indore in case No. 4444/04 MPIR, whereby the direction of re-engagement of respondent from the date of passing of the order without back wages has been issued. Appeal preferred by petitioner against the said order was also rejected by the Industrial Court on 21.8.2007.

(2.) Shri Anand Agrawal, counsel appearing for petitioner has strenuously urged that because the order of retrenchment of respondent was not passed in accordance to law, however, he cannot derive the benefit of Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the benefit of Section 25-H is only available where the employees is legally retrenched, otherwise the said workman is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 25-H. If a workman has not been retrenched legally then the protection of 25-H can not be made available to them.

(3.) To advert the argument of Shri Anand Agrawal, it is necessary to refer the facts of the case. The respondent was working as daily wager in the Municipal Corporation since 1.11.1989 and retrenched w.e.f. 1.3.2001 under the Government instructions after about 12 years. It was further contended that at the time of his retrenchment neither any show-cause notice was issued nor one month salary was paid, the principle of last come first go was not observed and the retrenchment compensation was also not paid to him however, the respondent was illegally retrenched. It is further said that on 2.2.2004 56 employees were engaged by Corporation without offering an opportunity for his re-engagement though he is ready to serve, however, prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.