Madhya Pradesh High Court
Minda Sai Limited vs Smt. Laxmibai on 3 July, 2018
1 W.P. No.5660/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5660/2017
Factory Manager Minda Sai Limited Vs. Smt. Laxmibai
Indore, Dated: 03.07.2018
Shri S.M. Bapat, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri P.Karpe, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard finally with consent.
By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the employer has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 6/7/2017 directing reinstatement of the respondent with back wages.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Labour Court has committed an error in passing the award without appreciating the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses especially the evidence of the Manager DW-2 Manoj Mishra.
As against this, learned counsel for respondent submits that the evidence has been elaborately examined by the labour Court while passing the impugned award.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the respondent had submitted the claim before the labour Court that she was working with the petitioner for last 20 years as Operator and on 11/6/2012 without assigning any reason, by oral order her services were terminated. It was further pleaded that on 11/6/2012 the petitioner had called her in the office and Manoj Mishra and Vasanat Kumar had threatened her by making false allegations and had taken signature on two blank paper and had also taken thumb impression and had forcibly given the cheque by ordering her to go out of 2 W.P. No.5660/2017 the factory. Out of fear she had left the premises and when the situation became normal she had made a complaint to the union officers and also to the police. Plea was raised that no such resignation was given by the respondent and there was also no reason to give the resignation.
The petitioner by filing reply to the statement of claim had taken the plea that the respondent was unskilled worker and she was not orally terminated, but she had voluntarily given the resignation and she was never threatened by Manoj Mishra or Vasant Kumar nor her signature were taken on the blank paper.
The labour Court has permitted both the parties to lead evidence and thereafter has examined not only the oral evidence, but has also considered the documentary evidence on record. The statement of respondent PW-1 Laxmi Birla and PW-2 Amjad Patel as also the documents filed by them as Ex.P/1 to P/4 have been examined. As regard the evidence led by the petitioner, the labour court has duly considered the statement of DW-1 Swaroop Mahesh Yadav and DW-2 Manoj Mishra as also the documents Ex.D/1 and D/2 filed by them. On the minute analysis of the evidence, the labour court has reached to the conclusion that the respondent was working as Operator with the petitioner since 1/1/1995 and her signature on the blank papers were taken on 11/6/2012. The Labour Court has considered the admission of DW-1 Mahesh Yadav that on the date the respondent had given the alleged resignation letter, she was not working with the petitioner and had found that when the resignation letter 3 W.P. No.5660/2017 Ex.D/1 was written the respondent was not in service. On the examination of the evidence, it has been found that blank papers were taken from the respondent and thereafter the forged document Ex.D/1 was prepared. It has also been noted that though DW-1 had stated that the respondent had given the resignation because she was not keeping well whereas no such fact is mentioned in the resignation and the resignation states that because of family circumstances she is unable to work. The findings in respect of fabricating the resignation letter Ex.D/1 has duly been arrived at by the labour Court on the proper appreciation of the evidence and the same does not suffer from any error.
That apart, the petitioner's witnesses had admitted that the M.P.Industrial Employment Standing Order Act 1961 and Rules 1963 are applicable and as per said rule, it was necessary to give one month notice or one month wages in-lieu of notice which was not complied with. Such oral termination of service has rightly been found to be retrenchment within the provision of the Act and since the requirement of Sec.25(f) and 25(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with, therefore, the termination of the respondent has been rightly found to be illegal retrenchment.
The labour Court has also examined the issue if the respondent was employed during the period from the date of termination till the passing of the order of the labour court and has found that inspite of the attempt she could not get the employment and has remained unemployed. Hence, the reinstatement with back wages has been 4 W.P. No.5660/2017 directed. The award passed by the labour court is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence and the petition being a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of interference is limited.
Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned award is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2018.07.05 15:28:04 +05'30'