Madhya Pradesh High Court
Srf Ltd Industrial Area Malanpur,Bhind vs Yogendra Singh Parihar on 25 April, 2018
-1-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-3690-2012
( SRF LTD INDUSTRIAL AREA MALANPUR,BHIND Vs YOGENDRA SINGH PARIHAR)
&
sh
WP-4192-2012
e
(YOGENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Vs FACTORY MANAGER, SRF LIMITED
ad
Gwalior, Dated : 25-04-2018
Pr
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP
a
hy
No.3690/2012.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondent in WP
ad No.3690/2012.
M Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.4192/2012.
of Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent In W.P. rt No.4192/2012.
ou The common cause of grievance of the employee in WP No.4192/2012 as well as the employer WP No.3690/2012 is the order C dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Labour Court under the MPIR which h was confirmed by the appellate forum i.e. Industrial Court directing ig reinstatement of employee without back wages. H The Labour Court set aside the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 30.11.2001 by holding that the employee was not guilty of major misconduct along with supplemental finding that the charge of leaving the machinery unattended was only partly proved as the supervisor can not be absolved of contributory misconduct.
The Labour Court thus, after quashing the order of penalty of dismissal directed reinstatement with no back wages due to failure of the employee to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of absence.
-2-WP-3690-2012 ( SRF LTD INDUSTRIAL AREA MALANPUR,BHIND Vs YOGENDRA SINGH PARIHAR) & WP-4192-2012 (YOGENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Vs FACTORY MANAGER, SRF LIMITED e sh Considering the fact that more than 16 years have elapsed since ad dismissal, the question that begs for an answer is as to whether the Pr reinstatement of the petitioner in the present scenario when the technology in textile sector has undergone rampant change due to a modernization of technology and techniques would it be feasible and hy viable for the employee and as well as the employer to execute the ad impugned orders.
It would thus be appropriate to direct the parties to contemplate M by way of mediation process as to what alternative relief to the of employee would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, Registry is directed to appoint an appropriate rt mediator and the parties are directed to appear before the said ou mediator on 07.05.2018 at Mediation Centre, New High Court C Campus, Gwalior.
h The mediator is requested to conduct and conclude the ig proceedings of mediation as expeditiously as possible. H List after receipt of mediation report or after eight weeks whichever is earlier.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Suneel Digitally signed by SUNEEL DUBEY Date: 2018.04.27 10:14:30 +05'30'