Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammed Juned Ahmed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2017
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
W.A. No.837/2016
Mohammed Juned Ahmed
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.839/2016
Irfan Ali
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.841/2016
Sayed Tariq Ali
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.842/2016
Sapna Singh
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.843/2016
Hafizullah Ansari
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.833/2016
Mohd. Zafar
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
2
W.A. No.828/2016
Afzal Khan
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.829/2016
Irshad Ali
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.824/2016
Omair Ali @ Omair Yar
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.835/2016
Sufiyan Ahmed Siddiqui
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
W.A. No.834/2016
Samina Hadi
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Amit Seth, Govt. Advocate on advance notice for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
ORDER
(03.01.2017) As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in all these writ appeals were working as daily wages employees in the establishment of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. Their services were terminated and the same was challenged before the learned Writ Court. Writ Court having relegated the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy available of approaching the labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, these appeals have been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nayayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
3. The ground vehemently canvased before us was that as the petitioners' termination is without following the due process of law, it is illegal and as the petitioners were only claiming the status as daily wages employees and consequential benefits accruing thereto, the writ Court should have interfered into the matter. However, we find that the establishment of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioners herein "workmen" within the meaning of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and even if an enquiry was not conducted before terminating their services by virtue of the Provisions of Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court is empowered to cause an enquiry into the matter and merely because an enquiry has not been conducted if the matter is agitated under the forum created under the Industrial Disputes Act, the employees can always justify 4 their action before the labour Court.
4. That being so as a efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners for approaching the labour Court and as before the labour Court all issues including the questions of status of the petitioners and the issue pertaining to enquiry can be more appropriately dealt with after recording of evidence, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court relegating the petitioners to take recourse remedy of approaching the labour Court. However, in case the petitioners approach the labour Court and file an appropriate application raising the dispute, the labour Court is directed to decide the matter in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of three months from the date of institution of proceedings.
5. With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
pn