Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Mohan Dixit vs M.P.Industrial Court Bhopal on 3 July, 2012
W.P. No.1209/2001
3.7.2012
Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
Challenging an order dated 2.8.2000 Annexure A/2 passed by the Industrial Court, Bench Bhopal allowing in part the appeal filed by the respondent Corporation and denying back wages to the petitioner on his reinstatement, this writ petition has been filed.
Petitioner was working as a daily wages employee in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. On 2.5.88 his services were terminated on the ground that he is a daily wages employee, his services are unsatisfactory and as he is not showing any improvement, his services were terminated without conducting any enquiry without granting opportunity and therefore, the same amounts to retrenchment. Petitioner challenged the action by filing an application under Section 31(3) before the Labour Court No.2, Bhopal. The Labour Court No.2, Bhopal vide order dated 22.5.92 came to the conclusion that termination is without conducting an enquiry, without show cause notice and is on the allegation of unsatisfactory service and therefore, this amounts to casting stigma and it amounts to retrenchment and therefore, finding the termination to be illegal, in contravention to Rule 11(a) of the M.P. Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and Standard Standing Order formulated therein, Labour Court directed for reinstatement with full back wages. On appeal being filed by the respondent Corporation the industrial Court has allowed the appeal in part and even though the order of reinstatement was upheld but finding the employee concern to be a daily wages employee and further holding that employee has not led evidence in support of his contention that he was not gainfully employed during the period, back wages is denied to him and therefore, claiming back wages and challenging the aforesaid part of the order, this writ petition has been filed.
Having heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, it is clear that back wages is denied merely on the ground that petitioner did not enter into witness box and did not point out to the Court concerned that he was unemployed during the period in question when his termination was in operation and also did not led evidence. Taking note of all these eventualities, the Industrial Court exercised its discretionary powers and has found that under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for back wages. In doing so, I am of the considered view that the Industrial Court has not committed any error warranting interference into the matter by this Court. Petitioner apart from the fact was a daily wages employee, was proceeded against and the impugned action was taken due to unsatisfactory service. The impugned action was quashed by the Labour Court only on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not granted to him. Order was not quashed on the ground of allegation is not being established. It is seen from the record that the order was quashed because the employer did not lead evidence to substantiate the contention of unauthorized absence. Infact, namely the employer and the petitioner have not entered the witness box and therefore, the Industrial Court in the absence of evidence to show that the petitioner was unemployed and unable to produce evidence to the effect that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question and earn his living, backwages was denied.
In this regard the Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghathan Vs. S. C. Sharma
- AIR 2005 SC 768 has held that if an employee neither pleads nor places any material before the Court below that he was not gainfully employed during the period, he is not entitled for back wages. Similar principles are laid down in the case of PGI Medical Education Vs. Raj Kumar - Judgment Today 2001 (Vol.1) Page 336.
Finding recorded by the Industrial Court in this regard is a just and reasonable finding and the same does not warrant interference exercising discretionary jurisdiction in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE mrs. mishra