Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shiv Kumar Shukla Judgement Given By: ... on 14 February, 2014
1
W.P. No. 6460 Of 2011
14.2.2014
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on admission.
Award dated 25.3.2010 passed by Labour Court under
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is being assailed vide this writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Having been dispensed from the work of Security Labour
w.e.f. February 2000, respondent workman raised a dispute
before Assistant Labour Commissioner, that having continuously worked since 198384 in the Forest Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Divisional Forest Officer, Satna, the services were dispensed with without any rhyme or reason and without following the stipulations contained under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 w.e.f February 2000. On failure of conciliation the dispute was referred for adjudication to Labour Court Satna by reference.
The dispute referred was ^^D;k Jh f'ko dqekj firk Hkksyk izlkn 'kqDyk dk lsok i`Fkdhdj.k oS| gS \ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSa ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg;s \ Before Labour Court respondent workman submitted his statement of claim stating therein that he has continuously worked since initial date of appointment, i.e., 198384 till the date his services were illegally determined on February 2000. Workman examined himself.
2The petitioner employer though filed their statement but did not lead evidence.
The Labour Court on a finding that the workman was engaged from 198384 to February 2000 and that provisions of Section 25 F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not followed set aside the retrenchment and directed for reinstatement of workman; however, without backwages.
While challenging the Award, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner/employer that the Labour Court grossly erred in relying on the evidence of the workman in arriving at a finding of Workman having worked for more than 240 days. Reliance is placed on decision in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani [(2002) 3 SCC 25], Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and another [(2004) 8 SCC 161], Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [(2004) 8 SCC 195], R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer [(2006) 1 SCC 106], Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748], Mahoob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another [(2008) 1 SCC 575], Munshi v. Nagar Panchayat [(2009) MPLSP 307 and Jasbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board [(2009) 5 SLR 606].
The principle of law laid down in these decisions would be of no avail to the petitioner as the petitioner had chosen not to lead evidence before Labour Court; whereon, the workman led the evidence and discharged his burden of having continuous by worked from 188384 till February 2000. The onus, thereafter shifted on the petitioner/employer to have disproved the workman However, they failed to do so.
3Therefore, the Labour Court had no option but to accept the evidence of workman.
In view whereof since the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is based on material evidence on record, no interference is called for.
Consequently petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi