Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 8 August, 2018
1
WP-5553-2016
((THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Vs DINESH KUMAR SHARMA)
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-5553-2016
Gwalior, Dated 08.08.2018
Shri N.S. Kirar, learned Government Advocate for
the petitioner/State.
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries vide this Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek quashment of order dated 07/01/1999 and 06/01/2016.
That the order dated 07/01/1999 is by the Labour Court on an application under Section 31(3), 61 and 62 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 whereby the Labour Court directed that workman be classified as permanent on the post of Fitter with difference of wages w.e.f. 06/07/1992. Against said order, an appeal under Section 65 of 1960 Act was dismissed on 14/10/2004. And Writ Petition No.3296/2006(S) filed against the order dated 14/10/2004 was dismissed on 05/08/2010. The State since did not challenge the order passed in Writ 2 WP-5553-2016 ((THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Vs DINESH KUMAR SHARMA) Petition, allowed the order of classification and the grant of difference of wages, to attain finality.
Furthermore, since the State did not comply the order, the respondent-workman filed an application under Section 108 of 1960 Act, which was allowed by the Labour Court on 07/09/2015 whereagainst appeal has been dismissed on 06/01/2016.
The challenge is on the ground that the Labour Court was not justified in classifying the respondent- workman as permanent and the direction for the difference of wages, was not justified.
The fact however is that the order passed by the Labour Court on 07/01/1999 attained finality with the dismissal of Writ Petition No.3296/2006(S). The State and its functionaries therefore were under an obligation to have honoured the order passed by the Labour Court. Instead, the State went on contesting the claim which is not appropriate for a model employer, who is bound by the Rule of law. The challenge is to an order dated 07/01/1999 again in a Writ Petition is nothing but misuse of powers vested 3 WP-5553-2016 ((THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Vs DINESH KUMAR SHARMA) in the State.
As regard to challenge to an order dated 06/01/2016, it is observed that the order has been passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case arising out of an order passed by the Labour Court on an application under Section 108 of the Act of 1960 which was in the nature of an execution of the order dated 07/01/1999. Since the order dated 07/01/1999 attained finality with the dismissal of Writ Petition No.3296/2006(S), there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner in challenging the said order.
We find that by challenging the order dated 07/01/1999 which had attained finality, the petitioner/State and its functionaries did not act in a bonafide manner which is warranted from the model employer. Instead of executing the order and granting the benefit enured to the workman, the petitioner has filed this petition to deprive the workman of his legitimate right, therefore, we are of considered opinion that the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with cost which quantify to Rs.25,000/- 4
WP-5553-2016 ((THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR Vs DINESH KUMAR SHARMA) (Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be deposited with the High Court of Legal Services Committee within a period of 30 days from the communication of this order.
The State of Madhya Pradesh shall be at liberty to recover the amount from the erring official responsible for not implementing the order passed by Labour Court and tendering wrong advised to file a petition against the order dated 07/01/1999.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge pwn* Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2018.08.14 17:40:29 +05'30'