Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 29th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 1523 of 2018
Between:-
NAVEEN KUMAR PATEL S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR
PATEL , AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
POSTED AS COMPUTER OPERATOR AT O/O
DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR
(M.P.) INFRONT SADAR TEMPLE, NEAR GOPAL
NURSERY, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N.K. SALUNKE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH
SERVICES VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR HEALTH DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
S ER ICES SATPURA BHAWAN ARERA HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES
JABALPUR DIVISION NEAR INDIRA MARKET
OPPOSITE RAILWAY HOSPITAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER GOVT.
DISTRICT HOSPITAL CAMPUS DISTT.
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER GOVT. DISTRICT
HOSPITAL CAMPUS DISTT. NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER )
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
WRIT PETITION No. 1525 of 2018
Date: 2022.07.01 18:37:07 IST
2
Between:-
BHAGWAN DAS PATEL S/O SHRI DHANIRAM
KUSHWAHA , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: POSTED AS CHOWKIDAR AT O/O
DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR
(M.P.) NIRANJAN WARD, BESIDE HARIJAN
MOUHALLA BAGICHA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N.K. SALUNKE, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH
SERVICES VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR HEALTH DIRECTOATE OF HELATH
SERVICES 6TH SATPURA BHAWAN, ARERA
HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES
JABALPUR DIVISION NEAR INDIRA MARKET
OPPOSITE RAILWAY HOSPITAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER GOVT.
DISTRICT HOSPITAL CAMPUR DISTT.
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER GOVT. DISTRICT
HOSPITAL CAMPUS DISTT. NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER )
WRIT PETITION No. 1527 of 2018
Between:-
SUNIL GHARU S/O SHRI MAHESH GHARU ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: POSTED
AS FARRASH AT O/O DISTRICT MALARIA
Signature Not Verified
SAN
OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR (M.P.) NIRANJAN
WARD, HARIJAN MOUHALLA, NEAR CHARKHA
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR
SANGH, (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHATURVEDI
Date: 2022.07.01 18:37:07 IST
3
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N.K. SALUNKE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH
SERVICES VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR HEALTH DIRECTORATE OF
HEALTH SERVICES 6TH SATPURA BHAWAN,
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES
JABALPUR DIVISION NEAR INDIRA MARKET
OPPOSITE RAILWAY HOSPITAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
NARSINGHPUR GOVT. DISTRICT HOSPITAL
C A M P U S DISTT-NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER GOVT. DISTRICT
HOSPITAL CAMPUS DISTT-NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
As similar issue is involved in these writ petition, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts adumbrated in W.P. No.1523/2018 are taken note of.
2. The facts as elaborated in the writ petition show that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wager on collector rate basis vide order dated 01-7- Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Date: 2022.07.01 18:37:07 IST 2010 and then his services continued till 2017. Thereafter, vide order 26-12- 4 2017 services of the petitioner along with three others were terminated after an enquiry.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order of termination is arbitrary, inasmuch as no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioners and without appreciating the fact that the petitioners continued in their services for a prolong period of 7-8 years, their services were terminated by stroke of pen by the impugned order. Thus, Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, inasmuch as dispensation of services of the petitioners is based on some enquiry regarding excess expenses incurred in making labour payment and these reasons were not attributable to the petitioners and hence, their services could not have been terminated. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State submits that the services of the petitioners have been terminated by an order which falls within the ambit and scope of termination simplicitor. It is strenuously urged by him that services of the petitioners were already discontinued prior to impugned order and one of the daily-wagers whose name finds mention in the impugned order, namely, Mukesh Kumar Bardia, initially approached this Court by filing a writ petition, who later on withdrew the petition with the liberty to approach competent Labour Court. Further, submission of the counsel is that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners to approach Labour Court. Therefore, while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Transport and Dock Workers Union and others vs. Signature Not Verified SAN Mumbai Port Trust and another, (2011) 2 SCC 575 State counsel submits Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI that since disputed questions of facts are involved, therefore, the petitioners Date: 2022.07.01 18:37:07 IST 5 should avail the remedy available in law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds force in the submission advanced on behalf of the State that the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy to approach Labour Court in accordance with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also germane to note that one Mukesh Kumar Bardia has approached Labour Court assailing his termination and, therefore, since there exists an alternative efficacious remedy of raising dispute before competent Labour Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions.
6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, the petitions stand disposed of extending liberty to petitioners to take recourse to competent Labour Court. Needless to emphasize, if petitioners raise a dispute before the competent Labour Court, the same in turn, shall be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.
7. Consequently, the writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Date: 2022.07.01 18:37:07 IST