Madhya Pradesh High Court
Birla Corporation Limited (Unit Of ... vs D.P. Patel (Dadhibal Prasad Patel) on 16 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 522 of 2020
Between:-
1. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED (UNIT OF SATNA
CEMENT WORKS) THR. ASSISTANT VICE
PRESIDENT (KARMIK AND ADMINISTRATION)
)UNIT OF SATNA CEMENT) P.O. BIRLA VIKAS
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. FACTORY MANAGER SATNA CEMENT WORKS
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJA BHAIYA TIWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
D.P. PATEL (DADHIBAL PRASAD PATEL) S/O SHRI
DASHRATH PRASAD PATEL , AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S , HANUMAN NAGAR NAI BASTI DISTT.
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR VERIMA, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the order dated 2.11.2019 (Annexure-P-5) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Satna, District Satna (MP) by which directed to the petitioner to pay 50% wages to the respondent from the date of retirement i.e. on 30.8.2016 upto attaining the age of 60 years.
The controversy involved in this case has already been considered and decided by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.10125/2020 decided on 8.6.2021 which are as follows:-
''Since the identical issue is involved in connected petitions i.e. W.P. Nos.10137/2020, 10210/2020, 10219/2020, 10309/2020, 10311/2020, 10750/2020 and 16382/2020, therefore, all the petitions are heard Signature Not Verified SAN analogously and are being decided by a common order.Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI
For the purpose of convenience the facts of W.P. No.10125/2020 are Date: 2022.02.17 17:20:53 IST 2 being taken up.
The petitioner by the instant petition is questioning the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court, Satna dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure- P/1) whereby the reference made to the Labour Court, Satna by the State Government has been decided by the impugned award. The petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages as he has been superannuated by the respondent/organization on attaining the age of 58 years and further it is held by the Labour Court that the age of superannuation of the petitioner was 60 years, therefore, the order of superannuation is set aside directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with 50% back wages.
2. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the said portion of the award claimed that instead of 50%, the reinstatement ought to have been made with full back wages.
3. The respondents have criticized the award by filing petitions mainly on the ground that the Labour Court, Satna has no competence to pass the award as the “appropriate Government†in respect of the petitioner is the Central Government, ergo reference cannot be made by the State Government. However, those petitions have been decided by this Court maintaining the award holding that there was no illegality in respect of deciding the reference made by the State Government because the State Government is also the “appropriate Government†in respect of the employee working in the respondent/organization considered to be a controlled industry.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 300 parties being Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others saying that if the order of superannuation is found illegal and is set aside, the Signature Not Verified SAN petitioners are entitled to get 100% back wages. However, the facts of said Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI case is altogether different from the case in hand and, therefore, the same is Date: 2022.02.17 17:20:53 IST 3 not applicable. In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered the interim order granted by the Court whereby the employees were allowed to continue in service, therefore, they become entitled to get salary, Supreme Court restrained the Government to make any recovery whereas in the present case, the reference has been made to the Labour Court and the Labour Court decided the case, framed issue regarding back wages and appreciating the material fact available granted 50% of back wages, therefore, interference in such finding is not proper.
5. However, in view of the aforesaid when the award has already been maintained in other set of petitions, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petitions for the reason that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the issue regarding payment of back wages at the rate of 50%. Further, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujrat Vij Company and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 437 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, the interference by exercising the power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible and as such, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed''.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of on same terms in the light of order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.10125/2020.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.02.17 17:20:53 IST