Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Nattha Batham on 25 April, 2017
Author: S.A. Dharmadhikari
Bench: S.A. Dharmadhikari
1
Writ Appeal No. 183/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sheel Nagu & HON'BLE mR.
JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 183/2017
State of M.P. & Others
Vs
Nattha Batham
Whether reportable :- Yes /No
_______________________________________________
For appellants : Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned
Government Advocate
For Respondents : None for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this Day of 25th April,2017) Per S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.
(1) This intra Court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchch Nayalaya ( Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by the appellant against the order dated 01/02/2016 passed in WP No. 2327/2015 by the learned Single Judge whereby the order dated 26/11/2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in Misc. Application No. 78/A/MP1R/14 by which the order of issuance of RRC to the Collector, Gwalior, for realization of the amount has been affirmed.
(2) Heard on I.A.No.1938/17 an application for 2 Writ Appeal No. 183/2017 condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. There has been delay of 20 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application which appears to be reasonable, the I.A.No.1938/17 is allowed. The delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.
(3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ Court failed to appreciate the fact that the Labour Court has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the appellants, therefore, the order needed interference particularly when the process of engagement of Panel Advocate for the State of M.P. before the Industrial Court was pending consideration therefore, bare perusal of Annexure P/3 would reveal that no one appeared before the Industrial Court on behalf of the appellants. Some time ought to have been granted. The writ Court merely relying on the statement of the Respondent herein decided the application under Section 108 of the MP.I.R. Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1960) therefore, the order passed by the writ Court needs to be set aside.
(4) Facts briefly stated are that the Respondent workman served as a Supervisor in Public Works Department on daily wages, had approached the Labour Court by filing application under Section 31(3), 61 & 62 of the Industrial Disputes Act for Classification on the ground of long continuance and uninterrupted service. The Labour Court vide order dated 17.01.2011 granted the relief. The order dated 17.01.2011 was challenged before the Industrial Court. The order was maintained and thus attained finality. Since the order was not complied by the appellants, an application under Section 108 of the Act of 1960 was filed 3 Writ Appeal No. 183/2017 before the Labour Court by the Respondent- Workman. The said application was decided on 15.04.2013. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2013. Thereafter, review petition was also dismissed. Since the payment was not released, the Respondent-workman approached the Labour Court for issuance of RRC. Vide order dated 26.11.2014, the Labour Court directed the Collector, Gwalior, to issue the RRC for realization of the amount.
(5) The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the claim as regards entitlement of the respondent- workman stands confirmed and crystallized and, therefore, the order for issuance of RRC by the Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference.
(6) The learned Writ Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 01.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2327/2015. This Court does not find any merit in the appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
(..../04/2017) (.... /04/2017)
mani