Madhya Pradesh High Court
Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 9 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)IIILLJ734MP
JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Damoh, has challenged the Award dated October 13, 1998 (Annexure -P12) passed by the Labour Court, Sagar in Case No. 22/95 I. D. R., by which the said Court has directed reinstatement of the Respondent No. 2 in service and payment to him of the pay scale of the post from which he was terminated. On said termination having been challenged by the Respondent No. 2, dispute was referred to the Labour Court as to whether the termination of the Respondent No. 2 was legal and justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled and what direction needed to be issued to the employer. The case of the Respondent was that he was a workman in the establishment of the petitioner and while he was working continuously from September 23, 1992, his services were terminated by the Secretary of the petitioner Samiti by order dated August 24, 1993 without holding any enquiry and without payment of any retrenchment compensation. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was not a permanent employee in the establishment but had been appointed on daily wages as a seasonal employee depending upon the need of the work on payment at the rates fixed by the Collector and he was being paid wages only for the days on which his services were obtained. It has also been stated that he had not worked for 240 days and, therefore, there was no occasion to consider payment of compensation to him under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pointed out that a petition had been filed by the Union before the High Court challenging the termination of the respondent's service in which the stay granted earlier was vacated on March 16, 1994 and thereafter, the petition was also dismissed. The Labour Court, on finding that although the Respondent No. 2 had not worked for 240 days as required for attracting the provisions of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, directed reinstatement and payment on the principles of equal pay for equal work. However, no direction for payment of any back-wages has been made.
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the Labour Court despite several opportunities with the result, Labour Court had to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the Respondent No. 2 had been engaged in connection with the seasonal work, he was not entitled to claim continuance on requirement of the work coming to an end. The termination order has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-P/1 in which this ground has not been stated for termination. Quite to the contrary, what has been stated in order Annexure-P/1 is that since the Respondent and others named in this order had been appointed contrary to the Rules, their services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner also did not adduce any evidence before the Labour Court to prove that the Respondent had been engaged for doing any seasonal work. Learned counsel has next contended that in view of the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner had not worked for minimum 240 days in a given year, it was not a case of retrenchment in violation of the provisions of Section 25F and, therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of the Respondent. While it is true that the Labour Court has recorded specific finding that the Respondent No. 2 had failed to prove that he had worked for atleast 240 days in a year, nevertheless the termination amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) and in view of the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court that persons appointed subsequently namely Rakesh Singh and Bhujbal, were continued, the action was apparently in violation of Section 2G of the Act. The Labour Court has also referred to the decision of this Court in Nahuram Namdeo v. State Industrial Court, Indore and Ors., (1980) MPLJ 24 that when no reason is assigned, the termination is illegal and that it is for the employer to disclose reasons. In the order of termination (Annexure-P/1), the reason has duly been disclosed and, therefore, on that ground the Labour Court could not have proceeded to direct reinstatement. However, in view of the fact that persons junior to the Respondent No. 2 were retained while the services of the said Respondent had been discontinued, the order of the Labour Court in so far as it directs his reinstatement does not call for interference in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel has next contended that since the Respondent No. 2 had been engaged on daily wages at the rates fixed by the Collector, the Labour Court could not have directed for payment of wages in the pay scales applicable to the regular employees of the petitioner. It is seen from the impugned Award that the dispute referred to the Labour Court was only as to whether the termination from service was legal and justified. No reference was made with regard to the entitlement of the Respondent to wages in the pay scales applicable to the regular employees of the petitioner nor any claim for classification was referred. The Labour Court has, therefore, clearly traversed beyond the scope of the reference in directing payment of wages in the regular scales and to that extent, the order of Labour Court deserves to be quashed.
4. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. While the direction for reinstatement of the Respondent No. 2 does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the direction for payment of wages equivalent to the pay scales applicable to the regular employees is quashed. Success being divided, the parties are left to bear their own costs.