Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Lavkesh Prasad Sharma on 23 February, 2017
1
W.P.No.8889/2011
W.P. No.8889/2011
23.02.2017
Shri S.K.Singh, Panel Lawyer for petitioner-State of M.P.
None for respondent.
Finally heard.
Respondent-workman initially engaged in the year 1995 was dispensed with from service in the year 1999. Workman raised Industrial dispute questioning his termination on the ground that the same was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') and that no departmental enquiry was held, nor his services were dispensed with for any misconduct. The dispute was referred for adjudication before Labour Court.
The labour Court on the basis of the evidence found that the petitioner-establishment is an Industry under Section 2(j) of 1947 Act and that the workman having continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of retrenchment and without following the stipulation contained under Section 25 F of the Act of 1947 found fault with the retrenchment and while setting aside the same has directed for reinstatement without backwages.
Though the petitioner has criticized the order of reinstatement on the anvil that being a daily wager there exist no lien as would create any right in favour of workman for reinstatement.
2W.P.No.8889/2011
However, in the given facts of the present case, wherein, the workman is found to have worked continuously from 1995 to 1999 and his services has been dispensed with without adhering to statutory stipulations, the impugned Award cannot be faulted with.
In M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 2 SCC 80 it is held :
"9. ... The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to the work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer."
As the findings arrived at by the labour Court cannot be faulted with, no interference is caused.
Petition fails and is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand