Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company vs Shri Ramswaroop Gupta on 3 September, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44825
1 M.P. No.203/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 3rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 203 of 2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
SHRI RAMSWAROOP GUPTA
Appearance:
Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for petitioner.
None for the respondent though served.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To call the record of the case.
(ii) To set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2017/2016 passed by CGIT, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/36/12.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in favour of petitioner may also be given together with cost of petition, in the interest of justice."
2. By the impugned award dated 31/1/2016 passed by CGIT, Jabalpur in case No.CGIT/LC/R/36/12, CGIT, Jabalpur it has been held that termination of services of workman/respondent was contrary to provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and compensation of Rs.75,000/- has been awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 05-09-2024 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44825 2 M.P. No.203/2017
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that a dispute was raised by workman/respondent alleging that he was appointed as a Peon against the vacant and sanctioned post on 29/2/2004 and he was being paid Rs.50/- per day. From 29/2/2004 to 8/9/2007 respondent/workman continuously worked in the Branch Office as a Peon. However, for continuation of service, authorities compelled him to write applications in different names. Three posts of Peons were sanctioned in the office of petitioner and two Peons were being paid regular pay, but when respondent/workman demanded wages equal to regular employees, then his services were terminated on 8/9/2007 without assigning any reason. Thus, it is the case of respondent/workman that he has worked for more than 240 days during each of the calendar year and, therefore, termination of his services without payment of retrenchment compensation is bad being in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent/workman is an unemployed person, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement with backwages.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply and claimed that respondent/workman was never appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post. His services were temporary and he was called whenever his services were required. The payment was made on the vouchers from the funds available in the Branch Office. He was never given regular work nor his appointment was on regular basis. He had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year. In the year 2003-04 he had worked for 45 days, in the year 2004-05 he had worked for 74 days, in the year 2005-06 he had worked for 59 days and in the year 2006-07 he had worked for 44 days. Thus, petitioner disputed claim of respondent/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 05-09-2024 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44825 3 M.P. No.203/2017
5. CGIT, Jabalpur after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that all applications, which were made for payment of salary, are in the handwriting of one and the same person, therefore, CGIT accepted the contention of respondent/workman that petitioner had compelled the workman to make applications for payment in the names of different persons. However, after holding that termination of services of the workman is in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal instead of directing for reinstatement, awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
6. Challenging the award passed by CGIT, Jabalpur, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that CGIT has erred in law by holding that respondent/workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. In fact, he had worked for 45 days only in the year 2003-04, 74 days in the year 2004-05, 59 days in the year 2005-06 and 44 days in the year 2006-07.
7. None for respondent though served.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
9. The workman has filed applications, Ex.W/1 to W/369 to show that workman was compelled to make an application for release of payment in the names of different persons. CGIT, Jabalpur has come to a conclusion that all these applications are in the handwriting of one person only. Even from naked eye it appears to the Court also that said finding given by CGIT is correct. Even counsel for petitioner could not challenge the finding recorded by CGIT that all applications, i.e. Ex.W/1 to W/369, are in the handwriting of one and the same person. How such applications, which were made in the names of different persons for release of money, could be in the handwriting of one person only? Thus, the ground taken by workman that although he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year but still respondent had compelled him to make applications in different fake Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 05-09-2024 18:50:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:44825 4 M.P. No.203/2017 names so that he may be continued in service, appears to be correct. Although counsel for petitioner submitted that workman should have made a complaint, which was not done and, therefore, it is clear that the stand taken by workman appears to be incorrect, but in view of scarcity of jobs it cannot be expected from a person who was working as a Peon that he would make a complaint and then to lose his job.
10. Be that whatever it may be.
11. Once CGIT, Jabalpur has recorded a finding of fact that all applications, i.e.Ex.W/1 to W/369, are in the handwriting of one and the same person and in absence of any serious attempt on the part of petitioner to challenge said finding, this Court is of considered opinion that CGIT did not commit any mistake by holding that workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Furthermore, CGIT has awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no jurisdictional error was committed by CGIT, Jabalpur while passing award dated 31/1/2016 in case No.CGIT/LC/R/36/12.
12. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 05-09-2024 18:50:29