LAKHAN SINGH Vs. M P ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned single Judge to the larger Bench on the ground that the question of law which is involved in the petition is of wider importance.

(2.) FOR purposes of disposal of this matter, it will be relevant to refer to few facts of the case. The petitioner was an employee of the the-then Chhindwara Electric Supply Company, Chhindwara. It was taken over by the M. P. Electricity Board (for short 'board'), therefore the services of the petitioner were merged with the Board by order dated March 10, 1966 and the petitioner was appointed as a Line Worker. It is alleged by the petitioner that his services were not properly counted and he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 1995 by treating his services in the Board with effect from January 16, 1968; whereas he was appointed initially with effect from March 10, 1966 and the earlier services of the petitioner in Chhindwara Electric Supply Company with effect from June 12, 1958 to March 9, 1966 were not counted for purposes of retiral benefits. It is alleged that his leave benefits were also not given as also other connected benefits. The petitioner therefore approached the Labour Court by moving an application which came to be registered as Case No. 26/96/mpir. The respondent Board filed a reply and took a preliminary objection that the petitioner is not an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2 (13) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the 'act') as he has retired. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court overruled this objection by order dated September 3, 1996. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Industrial Court by the Board and the Industrial Court reversed the decision of the Labour Court holding that a retired employee is not covered by the definition of 'employee' under Section 2 (13) of the Act by its order dated May 8, 1997. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) THE learned single Judge after hearing both the parties observed that in view of contention raised by Shri Menon, learned counsel appearing for the Board the matter requires to be referred to larger Bench. It was contended on behalf of the Board that under Section 31 (3) of the Act read with definition of 'employee', as defined in Section 2 (13), only dismissed, discharged and retrenched employee or whose services have been otherwise terminated is entitled to maintain the application and not the petitioner. As against this, it was contended by Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner that maintainability of application under Section 31 (3) of the Act will depend on the nature of claim.