HEMRAJ Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was Mechanic-II in the employment of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and in the year 1970 was posted at Seoni Depot. He applied for leave for two days i. e. . . 15. 1. 1974 and 16. 1. 1974. He overstayed the leave and joined only on 29. 1. 1974. During this period he did not apply for extension of leave. On the same day i. e. on 29. 1. 1974 his services were dispensed with in terms of Clause 8 (e) of the Standard Standing Orders vide order dated 29. 1. 1974. Since the order was issued by the Depot Manager, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager which was rejected on 6. 9. 1974. He again preferred an appeal to the General Manager. This was also rejected on 21. 1. 1978. He then went on making fruitless representations before he gave notice on 2. 6. 1980. As no settlement was arrived at he filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. A preliminary objection was taken by the employer i. e. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation that was decided in favour of the petitioner and the application was held within time being filed by 3 months of the last approach. After the full written statement was filed by the respondent, M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, issues were framed and the application was rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 28. 1. 1982 (Annexure-D ). It was held that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the services. The same view was taken by the Appellate Court i. e. Industrial Court and it rejected the appeal vide order dated 27. 2. 1984 (Annexure-F ). It is these two orders dated 28. 1. 1982 (Annexure-D) and dated 27. 2. 1984 (Annexure-F) which are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this petition.

(2.) SHRI A. G. Dhande, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation first urged that the Courts below were wrong in holding that the application was within time. It was urged that the matter shall be governed by the amendment introduced by M. P. Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance No. 27 of 1976 which was brought into force from July 30, 1976. This ordinance amended Section 31 (3) as also Section 62 (1) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act. Second proviso has been added to Section 31 (3) of the Act whereby no notice has been dispensed with. Section 62 (1) as it stood amended by that ordinance provided for period of one year for approaching the Labour Court questioning any dispensation of service. The contention is that the application which was admittedly made beyond one year from the date of this amendment was clearly barred by limitation. Such an argument has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in Som Singh v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, 1980 M. P. L. J. 211. This decision has been followed by this Court in Dwarka Singh Thakur v. The Industrial Court, M. P. Indore and Ors. M. P. No. 923 of 1982 decided on 1. 8. 1983. The view taken is that where the cause of action has accrued prior to the date of amendment as in the present case the law as stood prior to the amendment so introduced by the amendment shall apply. We could not be persuaded to take a different view. Following this decision it appears clear that the petitioner could approach the Labour Court within three months of the last approach/notice which admittedly was issued on 21. 6. 1980. That being so, it has been rightly held that the application was maintainable and was made within the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) SHRI A. S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the petitioner's termination is in terms of Clause 8 (e) of the Standard Standing Orders which amounted to retrenchment and since admittedly the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been followed in the present case, the termination is void and the petitioner would be entitled to be directed for reinstatement. Clause 8 (e) is as under: