KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, RAJNAGAR Vs. SUKHDEV RAIKWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 08.09.2016 declared on 07.11.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sagar.

(2.) The petitioner is a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti constituted under M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. The respondent had filed a reference for his reinstatement on the post of Labourer stating that he was engaged on 02.12.2006 as Labourer on the permanent vacant post. He further stated that the petitioner had taken the work of irrigation and maintenance regularly and he was receiving an amount of Rs. 1800/- per month. It was further submitted that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calender year and, therefore, he acquired the status of permanent employee under the Industrial Dispute Act. He further stated that on 30.06.2011, his services were dispensed with without issuing any show cause notice or without following due process of law. Before dispense with his services, no retrenchment compensation has been paid to the respondent.

(3.) The petitioner filed their written statement denying the allegations. The petitioner has denied that the respondent was appointed against the vacant permanent post. The respondent has further submitted that the respondent was engaged for the purpose of irrigating the plants and maintenance as a daily rated employee and he was paid Rs. 60/- per day for the job of his labourship. It is denied that he was being paid Rs. 1800/- per month to the salary. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent has filed the claim on false basis. The petitioner has denied that the respondent has worked more than 240 days. The petitioner has also stated that neither the petitioner comes under the category of 'Industry' nor the respondent comes under the category of 'Employee'. The petitioner has further stated in the written statement, as the respondent is working as daily wager employee, therefore, no inquiry is required to be initiated against him. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as the respondent adduced the evidence before the learned Labour Court. The Labour Court thereafter passed an award dated 08.09.2016 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed to reinstate the services of the respondent with 50% back wages. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.