Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harish Chandra Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 W.P.No. 6752/2017
(Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 18/05/2018
Shri D.K.Katare and Shri Sohit Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S.Kirar, learned GA for the respondents No. 1
and 2/State.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21/8/2017 passed by the Labour Commissioner, whereby, the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Labour Commissioner in Chambal Division, at the relevant point of time, under whose jurisdiction district, Sheopur, Morena, Bhind and Labour Officer of Malanpur are included but the Labour Commissioner handed over the charge of District Bhind and Malanpur to the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, whereas, as per the submissions of the petitioner, they are junior to him and being the Assistant Labour Commisssioner of Chambal Division, the said charge ought to have been given to the petitioner.
As per the submissions of the petitioner, the State Government by notification dated 26/9/2013 (Annexure P/2) notified the area which are to be administered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Labour Officers of the Division and District Offices respectively. As per the said division, in absence of regular posting of Labour Officer, the charge of entire revenue division of Chambal is within the jurisdiction of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. He is the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Councillior under Industrial HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.P.No. 6752/2017 (Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) Dispute Act, 1947, Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also the appellate authority under M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 and Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, petitioner is also licensing and resisting officer under contract Labour Act, 1970 and Interstate Migrant Act, 1969 as well Registering Officer and Assessing Officer under Building and Other Construction Worker Welfare Act, 1996. Petitioner is senior in the gradation list vis-a-vis respondents No. 3 and 4, therefore, the charge could not have been given to any of the juniors.
It is further submitted that petitioner, being Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chambal Division is empowered to exercise powers conferred on Assistant Labour Commissioner under different Acts and he is the competent authority under the directions dated 15/9/2015 (Annexure P/4 & P/5). Since the different notifications indicate the authority of the petitioner as Assistant Labour Commissioner, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by the respondents by giving the charge to respondents No. 3 and 4. Same is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shivaji University Vs. Sangameshwar Education Society and Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 401.
This Court granted interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 30/10/2017.
Respondents filed reply alongwith application for HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 W.P.No. 6752/2017 (Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) vacation of interim order, therefore, with consent matter heard finally.
It is submitted by the respondents that the reliance placed on different notifications and orders is misplaced. It is submitted in the return that the Gazette Notification dated 26/9/2013 (Annexure P/2) defining the boundaries vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chambal Division, includes revenue division within Chambal area except those places, where the Labour Officer is posted. The said provision is only with respect to Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In the said notification itself, it has been clarified that the Assistant Labour Commsisioner, Morena would only be exercising its powers if the Labour Officer is not available, therefore, the power of Assistant Labour Commissioner is restricted with a caveat. Since a dispute is going on regarding promotion of Labour Officers before the Apex Court, therefore, the promotion to the post of Labour Officers has not been made. Consequently, where the Labour Officer could not be posted, the additional charge is given to the Labour Officer / Assistant Labour Commissioner of the adjoining districts. Nothing arbitrariness is apparent on record. It is just the administrative and interim arrangement. No vested legal right of the petitioner exists to take exception to the said administrative arrangement.
Earlier the charge of Labour Officer, Bhind and Malanpur was given to Neelesh Nigam who was exercising his powers as Labour Officer of Bhind and Malapur but HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 W.P.No. 6752/2017 (Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) since his retirement on 31/7/2017, considering the fact situation, Labour Commissioner gave the additional charge of Labour Officer of Malanpur and Bhind to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior which is no aberration at all.
In the return, doubtful integrity of petitioner is also mentioned. As per the submissions of respondents, some departmental enquiries are pending against the petitioner, therefore, looking to the tainted service record of the petitioner, discretion has been exercised by the Labour Commissioner in favour of other officers. Through interlocutory application filed vide I.A.No. 536/2018, respondents have placed the copy of order dated 26/12/2017 (Annexure R/x) whereby, because of conduct of petitioner, he has been placed under suspension and direction is given by the Labour Commissioner for registration of FIR against him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused their respective pleadings brought on record.
It is a case where petitioner, who is working as Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is seeking the charge of Labour Officer of Malanpur and Bhind and is aggrieved by the allotment of work duty vide Order dated 21/8/2017 issued by Labour Commissioner, whereby, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior has been given the duty to act as Labour Officer, Malanpur and Bhind. The documents placed by the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 is in respect of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as referred above; wherein, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 W.P.No. 6752/2017 (Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) jurisdiction of Labour Officer / Assistant Labour Commissioner has been prescribed. The said distribution memo itself indicates that the jurisdiction of Assistant Labour commissioner,Chambal Division,Morena would be of revenue division of Chambal Division, Morena with an exception of those districts/offices where Labour Officer has been appointed. Since in the District Bhind and Malanpur, Labour Officers got superannuated, therefore, for administrative purpose, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior has been given the charge of Labour Officer of Bhind and Malanpur (in addition) by the Labour Commissioner.
It is pertinent to mention here that by the said notification, powers of Registering Officer for the purpose of Chapter III of the said Act has been detailed out. It does not specifically restricts the Labour Commissioner not to appoint any Labour Officer in any district of Chambal Division in any manner. Here, the petitioner could not point out any law or executive instructions which restricts the power of Labour Commissioner to give additional charge to any Assistant Labour Commissioner to act as Labour Officer in any District of Chambal Division. When the distribution memo itself carves out the exception, then petitioner cannot place reliance over a notification which is otherwise confined for the purpose of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Circular dated 15/9/2015 (Annexure P/4) as well as dated 9/1/2012 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Labour Commissioner are of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 W.P.No. 6752/2017 (Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) no help to the petitioner.
Further, petitioner himelf has annexed an order dated 16/11/2016; whereby, petitioner was placed under suspension and with the pleadings of return, it appears that some departmental enquiries are pending against the petitioner. That fact appears to be a reason for Labour Commissioner to depute Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior to act as Labour Officer of District Bhind and Malanpur. No one has right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge. (See:State of Haryana Vs. S.M.Sharma and Ors.,AIR 1993 SC 2273).
One more glaring aspect is Section 3 and 7 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which gives sufficient power of supervision and guidance to Labour commissioner of State for taking work from the subordinates, therefore, Labour Commissioner has authority and jurisdiction vested in him by the Act itself for appointment or posting of any Assistant Labour Commissioner to act as Labour Officer of any district.
Writ of Mandamus is discretionary in nature and facts of the case do not evoke sufficient credence or assurance to issue the same.
From perusal of respective pleadings of the parties and on the basis of cumulative analysis of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, petition sans merits and is therefore, dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKIDate: 2018.05.25 16:39:56 +05'30'