Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gajendra Singh Bundela vs Forest Range Damoh on 11 April, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.16268/2014
Gajendra Singh Bundela
Vs.
Forest Range, Damoh
Shri Arvindra Shrivastava learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Neeraj Singh Chauhan, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent.
ORDER
(11/04/2018) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30/06/2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sagar.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk with the respondent w.e.f. 01/01/1999. His services have been terminated on 01/03/2000 in pursuance to the Government decision to terminate services of all those temporary employees who have been employed after 31/12/1988 and have not completed ten years of service. Subsequently, the state Government decided to reinstate all such employees and a 2 W.P. No.16268/2014 circular to this effect has been issued on 02/01/2004. However, the services of the petitioner were not reinstated in spite of the repeated representations to the higher authorities. On the representation submitted by the petitioner a letter was written by the Chief Conservator of Forest to Forest Officer, Damoh on 18/12/2006 to take appropriate action in the matter. As no action was taken in the matter, therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 24/09/2007. In spite of the communication made by the higher authorities as no action was taken, the petitioner has, therefore, raised industrial dispute challenging his termination. The dispute has been referred to the Labour Court, Sagar for adjudication. Ultimately, the award has been passed in favour of the petitioner holding the termination as illegal in violation of Section 25 of the I.D. Act. However, instead of granting benefit of reinstatement, the Labour Court has granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- only in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that the petitioner served only for one year and has raised the dispute belatedly. Being aggrieved by that award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3 W.P. No.16268/2014
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has erred in not directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. He also submits that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in raising the industrial dispute, but, it was because of pendency of the matter before the authorities for action. He further submits that if there was any delay, the Labour Court could have denied the wages while directing his reinstatement. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 869 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 754.
4. On the other hand, the respondent has filed reply. In the reply, the respondent has stated that the petitioner was a daily wager labour and has worked for few days. The claim of the petitioner was disputed. The requisite muster roll was also perused by the Court below and thereafter the Court below after considering the various judgments, has passed the impugned award thereby awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner was not a 4 W.P. No.16268/2014 regular employee and, therefore, he is not entitled to be reinstated. Learned Govt. Advocate relies upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Narsinghpur Vs. Mohanlal Kumhar (Prajapati) in Writ Appeal No.11/2017 and other connected writ appeals.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed as daily wages employee with the respondent in the year 1999. His services have been terminated on 01/03/2000. Thereafter as the petitioner was not reinstated in service in light of the circular issued by the State Government, therefore, he raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court challenging his termination. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Sagar for adjudication and ultimately the Labour Court has passed an award dated 30/06/2014 thereby the order of termination of the petitioner was set aside and instead of reinstatement, the Labour Court has directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner on the ground that the said claim has been filed by 5 W.P. No.16268/2014 the petitioner at the belated stage and also that he had worked with the respondent only for one year. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Narsinghpur (supra) in para-25 has held as under :
"25. In view of the above enunciation of law, we hold that there cannot be a straitjacket for awarding reinstatement with backwages or without backwages or compensation in lieu of reinstatement. There is no hard and fast rule that the Court should grant relief of reinstatement in each and every case. The same shall depend on facts and circumstances of each case. The Court may also pass an order substituting the order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds." 6 W.P. No.16268/2014
7. As per this judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the compensation can be granted in lieu of reinstatement but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds. In the present case, the Labour Court by passing the impugned award has assigned the reasons for not passing the order of reinstatement of the petitioner. Thus, in view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere into the matter.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2018.04.11 15:45:50 +05'30'