Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd.Jhahid Khan vs Fish Farmers Development Agency on 24 January, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 196 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. JHAHID KHAN, S/O SHRI MUSTAFA KHAN, R/O
FUTERA WARD NO.5, MALYANA, DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL No. 197 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
MOHD. YUSUF KHAN, S/O BALI MOHHAMMED, R/O
FUTERA WARD NO.4, OPPOSITE DHARMA SPEAKER,
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/31/2023
11:48:37 AM
2
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
DAMOH, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL No. 198 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRABHAN SAHU, S/O LATE BABULAL SAHU, R/O
CIVIL WAR NO.3, NEAR GULAB SCHOOL, BELATAL
ROAD, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, DAMOH
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL No. 200 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
MAHENDRA KURARIYA, S/O SHRI SHIVDAYAL
KURARIYA POST AANU, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
DAMOH, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/31/2023
11:48:37 AM
3
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL No. 201 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
JALAM SINGH LODHI, S/O SHRI BARE SINGH, R/O
LUHARI, POST LUHARI, TEHSIL HATA, DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
DAMOH, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT APPEAL No. 202 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
DAMODAR PRASAD GARG, S/O SHRI RAMGOPAL
GARG, R/O JATASHANKAR COLONY KI TAPARIA, NEAR
SHANKARJI MANDIR, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. FISH FARMERS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
DAMOH, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/31/2023
11:48:37 AM
4
2. THE LABOUR COURT, SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
The learned Single Judge by a common order dated 13.12.2006 allowed the Writ Petition No.970 of 2003 and five other connected petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these writ appeals are filed. For sake of conveniences, the facts as narrated in Writ Petition No.970 of 2003 are narrated herein. 2(a). The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed by the respondents to the post of Peon for a fixed term which was renewed from time to time. After the expiry of the last tenure of appointment, the contract of the employee was not renewed. The non-renewal of the contract appointment, therefore, has resulted into the termination of the services. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application for conciliation under Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. On failure, as no settlement could be arrived at, the Additional Labour Commissioner passed an order of reference on 30 th August, 2000 as follows:
"Whether the termination of the employment of Shri Damodar Prasad s/o Ramgopal Garg is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief he is entitled?"
2(b). The Labour Court held that the termination of the employee amounts to retrenchment and accordingly ordered for reinstatement. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court.
Signature Not VerifiedQuestioning the same, the respondents/workmen are in appeals.
Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 1/31/2023 11:48:37 AM 53. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That the learned Single Judge erroneously came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has committed an error on relying on the judgment in the case of Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corporation) vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2006 AIR SCW 2497 as well as in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and others vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27. He contends that the Labour Court rightly came to the view that the termination of the employee amounts to retrenchment and, therefore, directed for reinstatement.
4. We have heard the learned counsel.
5. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions of the parties took into account the nature of appointment of the employee. It was stated in para 17 therein that the first order of appointment dated 28.10.1992 was for a period of one year with a condition that the tenure of appointment shall only for a fixed period of one year. After expiry of the said period, once again, the order was issued. The same went on upto the year 1999. Thereafter no order was issued and, therefore, a dispute was raised. On considering the contentions, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the question of termination would not arise for consideration at all. That the respondent/employee was appointed for a fixed period of one year and the said employment ceased by efflux of time. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the termination has taken place and it cannot be treated as retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the view the Labour Court was not justified in directing for reinstatement of the employees Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 1/31/2023 11:48:37 AM 6 with full back wages.
6. On considering the contentions as well as the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error that calls for any interference. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the facts as well as the relevant law. So far as the nature of employment is concerned, the material on record would indicate that the appointment was for a fixed period of one year. It is by efflux of time that the period came to an end. After the expiry of the said period, the employees were appointed by issuance of a fresh order of appointment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the employees were continued in employment till the date of termination. Consequently, in view of the nature of employment for a fixed period of one year, it cannot be said that there was any termination. The termination would occur only when the employment is interrupted and is broken only by an order of termination. The same is not the fact herein. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the order. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same.
7. Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 1/31/2023
11:48:37 AM