Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2022
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
MISC. PETITION No. 1629/2020
Between:-
OM PRAKASH SENGAR S/O JAGVEER
SINGH SENGAR , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
SUBHASH NAGAR , HAZIRA (MADHYA
PRADESH
....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.P. SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF
ENGINEER YAMUNA KACHHAR, THATIPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT HARSI DIVISION DABRA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. CHAURASIYA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
...............................................................................................
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
(Passed on 5th of April, 2022) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.2.2020 passed in Misc. Application No.17/MPIR/2019 by Industrial Court Bench At Gwalior (M.P.) whereby the Industrial Court has set aside the order of Labour Court and the matter has been remanded back to the Labour Court for reconsideration of the facts on the ground of the decision of 02 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436.
2. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that on 15/03/1989, the petitioner was engaged in daily wages. The petitioner submitted an application on 17.7.1995 for classification before the labour Court who allowed the claim of petitioner and Industrial Court also dismissed the appeal of the department. After a long round of litigation, Labour Court quantified the amount of Rs.4,96,733/- and RRC issued to Collector for recovery from the respondent No.03. Industrial Court confirmed the order of Labour Court and dismissed the appeal of the department. The case of the petitioner traveled up to the High Court. The High Court directed the recovery Officer to recover the amended RRC amount within three months. The Chief Engineer has passed an order and paid the amount of earlier RRC alongwith increments, however, the Industrial Court vide order impugned dated 17.2.2020 ordered in the light of Case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for recording the evidence to calculate the amount and decide the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned is bad in law. The order is prima facie based on wrong 03 facts and perverse findings because the main order of Labour Court had attained finality in the year 2003 by dismissing the writ petition of the respondent by this Court. The execution order wherein increment of the post was also included has been affirmed up to this Court and the order of Industrial Court for remanding the matter with direction to the Labour Court to decide the issue in the light of order of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) is illegal and against the settled legal position held in the case of petitioner himself, hence, deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with settled principle of law based on decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), therefore, need not to be interfered with.
5. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressing the grounds raised, submitted that the order passed by the Industrial Court is illegal and against the settled legal position, therefore, it is a null and void order. Counsel for the petitioner submitted a chart of chronological events which is reproduced as under:
Chronology of Events;
15.03.1989 Petitioner was engaged on daily wages. 17.7.1995 Petitioner submitted an application for 04 classification before the Labour Court. 25.01.1999 Labour Court allowed the claim of the petitioner. 30.08.2001 Industrial Court dismissed the appeal of the Department.
08.12.2003 This Court dismissed the petition of Department and confirmed the orders of Labour Court as well as Industrial Court.
25.06.2014 Labour Court quantified the amount of Rs.4,96,433/- and RRC issued to Collector for recovery from respondent no.3.
12.03.2014 Industrial Court confirmed the order of Labour Court and dismissed the appeal of the Department.
25.06.2014 The Labour Court passed an order for differences of salary w.e.f. 01.09.2002 to 25.12.2009 amounting Rs.10,52,850/-.
07.01.2016 This Court dismissed the W.P. No.6905/2014 of Department.
04.11.2016 The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the W.A. of the Department.
03.02.2017 This Court passed the order with direction to the Collector to recover the RRC amount.
14.03.2017 Application submitted by the petitioner. 25.09.2019 This Court directed the recovery officer to recover the amended RRC amount within three months.
10.01.2020 This Hon'ble Court in Conc. No.723/2017 directed to comply the order.
16.01.2020 Chief Engineer passed an order and paid the amount of earlier RRC alongwith increments. 17.02.2020 Impugned order has been passed by the Industrial Court.
7. In view of the facts mentioned as above, it is apparent that much before the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), the order of labour court had already attained finality and the respondents have already paid salary including increments for a particular period. It is settled principles of law that any subsequent decision on an identical or similar point by Coordinate or larger Bench or even change of law 05 cannot be made the basis for recording a finding that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error on the face of record.
8. Similar view has been taken by this Court in R.P. No.385/2018 (The Collector Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) & Anr. Vs. Murarilal Cheepa) decided on 12.03.2018 and in the case of The State of M.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma in W.P. No.5553/2016, decided on 08/08/2018.
9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by Industrial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law.
10. Consequently, order impugned order dated 17.2.2020 by Industrial Court Bench at Gwalior (M.P.) in Misc. Application No.17/MPIR/2019 is hereby set aside.
(SUNITA YADAV)
vpn JUDGE
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2022.04.06
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
13:08:27
+05'30'