STATE OF M.P. Vs. SOMDUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal arises out of order dated 25/6/18 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1739/2014, whereby the Award dated 30/8/2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in a dispute preferred by respondent/workman vide Reference Case No. 14/A/ID Act/12 adjudicated in favour of the respondent directing the appellants to reinstate him within 30 days of the passing of Award though without backwages, has been affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that respondent/workman was initially appointed as a daily waged employee on the post of Helper in the appellants' department on 1/1/1989. His services were terminated on 1/12/1995. A dispute was referred, but in the mean time, as per directions of the then Chief Minister, he was taken back in service on 11/8/2004. Thereafter, again, vide order dated 2/7/2005, his services were terminated. A dispute was again referred to the Labour Court which was registered as Reference Case No.73/08 and on 28/2/2011 an Award was passed in favour of the respondent/workman directing for his reinstatement. He was reinstated on 12/12/11. Again on 28/1/12, his services were terminated, aggrieved whereof, the dispute in question was raised by the respondent/workman before the Labour Court, in which statement of claim was submitted by him, contending therein that in place of 22 years retrenchment compensation, only 7 years retrenchment compensation had been paid; the retrenchment order dated 2/7/2005 had been struck down by the Labour Court and, therefore, he should be deemed to be in continuous service; there are more than 100 employees in the appellants' department and the same fall within the category of Industry and the provisions of Chapter 5-B of the Act are applicable thereto; the termination was against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order dated 28/1/12 be quashed and respondent/workman be reinstated with backwages.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the order of learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the provisions of section 25N of the Act are not applicable to the appellants' department, inasmuch as it may be an Industry, but does not come within the definition of "Industrial Establishment" as defined under section 25L of the Act. It is further contended that the provisions of section 25F had been complied with and there was no necessity for complying with the provisions of section 25N of the Act. There was no relationship of master- servant between the appellants and the respondent. The respondent had never been engaged against any vacant post and, therefore, no right accrued to him for reinstatement. No finding was recorded by the Courts below as to respondent's continuous working of 240 days, in absence whereof, order of reinstatement could not have been passed. It is further contended that the learned writ Court and learned Labour Court fell in error while relying on decision in the case of M.P. Housing Board Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chitnis (2008(3) MPHT 322), as the same is pending before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.18357/2008. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order of learned Single Judge, as well as, Award of the Labour Court, deserve to be quashed.