Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Mahasangh ... vs Gangadhar Sharma And Anr. on 30 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(0)MPLJ138
ORDER S.K. Dubey, J.
1. Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the M. P. Dairy Development Corporation, whose services were terminated. Respondent No. 1 challenged the said order before the Labour Court. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with back wages. In between the assets and liabilities of the Dairy Development Corporation were transferred to the petitioner. Against the order passed by the Labour Court of reinstatement and back wages, the petitioner as a transferee/assignee filed an appeal under Section 65 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the Act'). The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal as the petitioner was not a party to the case before the Labour Court. Aggrieved of the order of Industrial Court, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. An appeal against an order of the Labour Court lies under Section 65 of the Act which reads thus :
"65. Appeal - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Industrial Court -
(a) against a final decision of a Labour Court in respect of a matter falling under clause (a) or clause (c) of paragraph (A) or paragraph (B) or paragraph (C) of sub-section (1) of Section 61 by the person affected or the representative of employees or the employer;
(b) against a conviction by a Labour Court, by the person convicted;
(c) against the acquittal by a Labour Court, by the State Government;
(d) for enhancement of sentence awarded by a Labour Court, by the State Government :
(2) Every appeal shall be made within thirty days from the date of the decision, conviction, acquittal or sentence, as the case may be :
Provided that in computing the period of thirty days the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded :
Provided further that the Industrial Court may for sufficient reason, admit any appeal made after the expiry of such period.
(3) Where in any case, a Labour Court, by its order directs reinstatement of any employee and the employer prefers an appeal before the Industrial Court against such order, or any proceedings against the order of the Industrial 'Court' in the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be the employer shall be liable to pay such employee during the period of pendency of such appeal, in the Industrial Court or such proceedings in High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, full wages last drawn by him, inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule if the employee had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such employee had been filed to that effect in such court:
Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Industrial Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be that such employee had been employed and had been receiving adequate remuneration during any such period or part thereof the Court shall order that no wages shall be payable under this section for such period or part, as the case may be."
The petitioner as a person affected against the decision of the Labour Court passed against the Dairy Development Corporation filed the appeal as the said decision is binding on the petitioner under Section 77(c) of the Act, being the successor-in-interest or transferee employer of the respondent No. 1. Here it would be appropriate to extract Section 77 which reads thus :
"77. Parties on whom orders of Board etc., binding - An order or decision of a Labour Court, the Industrial Court or a Board shall be binding on -
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute who appeared or were represented before it;
(b) all parties who were summoned to appear as parties to the dispute whether they appeared or not, unless the Labour Court or the Industrial Court or the Board, as the case may be, is of the opinion that they were improperly made parties;
(c) in the case of an employer who is a party to the proceeding before such Court or Board in respect of the undertaking to which the dispute relates, his successors, heirs or assigns in respect of such undertaking; and
(d) in the case of a representative of employees, which is a party to the proceeding before such Court or Board, all persons represented by it on the date of the order or decision as well as thereafter."
3. From a bare reading of Section 77(c) it is clear that the order of reinstatement with back wages passed in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the Dairy Development Corporation is binding on the petitioner, as transferee, who falls within the ambit of the person specified in clause (c) of Section 77. See the case of S. P. Nanavaty v. R. K. Mishra, 1969 MPLJ 907, 1970 JLJ 179. Hence, the petitioner being affected person was entitled to file an appeal under Section 65 of the Act to challenge the decision of the Labour Court, In view of Section 77(c) the order of the Industrial Court cannot be sustained and has to be quashed, and is hereby quashed.
4. However, as the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with back wages was passed as long back as 14-10-1991, the respondent No. 1 has not been granted reinstatement nor has been paid full wages last drawn in accordance with Section 65(3) of the Act, hence, I direct the petitioner to make the payment of the full wages last drawn to the respondent No. 1 the employee in accordance with Section 65(3) of the Act from the date of order of the Labour Court till the appeal is decided. The petitioner shall pay all arrears due upto 31st August 1995 within a period of 3 weeks from today and then shall continue to pay the same till the decision of the appeal by 10th of each month. Compliance of Section 65(3) of the Act as directed shall be the condition precedent for hearing of the appeal on merits.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the Industrial Court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, as far as possible within an outer limit of four months. In the circumstances of the case parties to bear their own costs.