Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P.State Electricity Board &Anr. vs Brij Mohan Verma & Ors on 20 November, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
W.P(S)No.3697/2004
M.P. State Electricity Board and others.
-Versus-
Brij Mohan Verma & others.
PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi.
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for respondent
No.1
ORDER
( .11.2012) 1: This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.3.2004, passed in Appeal No.244/99/MPIR by the State Industrial Court. It is contended that the services of the respondent No.1 were dispensed with by the petitioners, which order was assailed in Labour Court where an order was passed on 15.4.1998, allowing the claim of the respondent. A review application was filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court, but the said review application was dismissed. When the appeal was preferred against the original order passed by the Labour Court, the said appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. A writ petition was filed before this Court assailing the order of rejection of appeal as barred by limitation and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court with a direction to decide the appeal on merits. However, by the order impugned, the appeal of the petitioners has again been dismissed on merits, therefore, this 2 writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that the respondent was not entitled to any protection as was extended under the Standing Order to the regular employees since the respondent No.1 was only a daily wager and he has hardly worked for a period of 64 days. This being so, the order passed by the Labour Court was not just and proper and the same was liable to be interfered with by the Appellate authority. However, since the appellate order has been passed without taking note of all these facts and the law well settled by this Court in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kushwaha and others (W.P.No.448/9 decided on 16.2.2004). It is contended that the order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed and the order of the Labour Court also deserves to be quashed.
2: Refuting the claim made by the petitioners, a return has been filed and it is contended that the respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a daily wager, but was subsequently appointed against a post as a Peon by a written order. The respondent was entitled to the protection extended under the Standing Order, but nothing was intimated to the respondent No.1, on the other hand, his services were dispensed with, whereas, juniors to the respondent No.1 were retained in service. It is contended that these particular aspects were taken note of by the Labour Court and after recording of evidence, a finding was reached that the respondent No.1 was entitled to be reinstated in service. Though there was no infirmity in the order so passed, yet the petitioners instead of challenging the order in appeal, preferred the review application and delayed the proceedings. Ultimately, when the review application was dismissed, the petitioners preferred the appeal which was earlier dismissed being barred by limitation, but after the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, the appeal was heard on merit and the same has been decided. The fact that the evidence to this effect was produced by the respondent No.1 that he was appointed on regular basis, whereas, no evidence was produced by the petitioners that respondent No.1 was only a daily 3 wager was duly considered by appellate Court and proper order was passed. It was further proved by the respondent No.1 that similarly situated persons though appointed after the appointment of respondent No.1 were continued in the employment, but the services of the respondent No.1 were dispensed with without even a show cause or informing the reasons for such discontinuance of service, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly interfered and has passed the appropriate order granting relief to the respondent No.1. These aspects have been considered by the Industrial Court in detail while rejecting the appeal of the petitioners and, therefore no illegality is committed in passing the order impugned. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed summarily.
3: This Court has sent for the record of the Labour Court and has examined the same minutely. Undisputedly, it was the evidence produced by the respondent No.1 that he was appointed initially on daily wages, but was subsequently appointed on a post. This evidence though was produced by the respondent No.1, could not be rebutted in any manner by the petitioners by producing any evidence. Even in the cross-examination nothing has been asked from the respondent No.1 by the counsel for the petitioners. The evidence so adduced by the respondent No.1 categorically demonstrates that junior persons appointed on service by the petitioners in the like manner were continued in service. No cogent reason was shown as to how the services of the respondent No.1 alone were not needed. Further, even if the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted, undisputedly, the Standing Orders are squarely applicable to the employees serving in the establishment of petitioners. There is a protection prescribed in Clause-11 of the Standing Order. It was required to be complied with, inasmuch as, at least some sort of information was required to be given to the employee concerned if his services were no longer required. The two Courts below have categorically held that non-compliance of such a provision was fatal for the petitioners 4 and, therefore, the order of discontinuance of services of the respondent No.1 was set aside.
4: The reliance placed by the petitioners heavily in a decision rendered by this Court is required to be examined. Undisputedly, the law is laid down with respect to certain class of employees appointed on contractual basis. However, it is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was not an employee of the said category whose contract appointment had come to an end and on account of that his services were dispensed with. That being so, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the services of the respondent No.1 could be dispensed with without even complying with the provisions of the Standing Order. The reliance placed by the petitioners in the case of M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Rameshwar Prasad Kushwaha and others (supra) is, thus, misconceived.
5: Lastly, learned counsel for petitioners has put his reliance in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd [(2007) 1SCC 408] and has contended that the regularisation cannot be claimed as of right. The case in hand is not with respect to the claim of regularisation. In fact, the regularisation is something else and dispensing with the services of an employee appointed on a post by a written order is totally different. This being so, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) is again misconceived.
6: In view of the above discussions, there is no force in the writ petition. The petition being devoid of any substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge /11/2012 A.Praj.
5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P(S)No.3697/2004 M.P. State Electricity Board and others.
-Versus-
Brij Mohan Verma & others.
O R D E R
Post it for /11/2012
(K. K.Trivedi)
Judge
/11/2012