Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. & Ors vs Smt.Vinita Jha & Ors on 29 September, 2014
:: 1 ::
Writ Petition No.1430/2001
25.9.2014.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner-State.
None for the respondents.
Heard.
Order-dated 16.3.2000 passed by the Industrial Court in an appeal under Section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1961, reversing the order-dated 5.3.1997 passed by Labour Court in Case No.78/MPIR/92, is being assailed vide this writ petition by the State of M.P. and its functionaries.
Engaged as daily wager w.e.f. 4.2.1985, the respondent- workman, by order dated 21.5.1992, was regularized as Chemist in the Public Health Engineering Department. However, realising that the post of Chemist is governed by Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) Condition of Service and Recruitment Rules, 1976 was to be filled by direct recruitment, the order-dated 21.5.1992 was cancelled on 25.5.1992.
Aggrieved, respondent-workman raised dispute before Labour Court under Section 31(3) of 1961 Act. The Labour Court vide its decision dated 5.3.1997 upheld the order dated 25.5.1992 on a finding that before implementation of order dated 21.5.1992, the same was withdrawn as the respondent gave her joining on 28.5.1992 and that the post of Chemist was a direct recruitment post under the Rules and no procedure was adhered to before regularizing the respondent-workman as Chemist.
Labour Court observed -
:: 2 ::
Writ Petition No.1430/2001**bl laca/k esa izkfFkZ;k us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa ;g dFku fd;k gS] fd 04-02-1985 dks mldh HkrhZ jlk;uK ds in ij tcyiqj dh xbZ] rc ls og 24-05-1992 rd ogka dk;Z fd;k] mls 21-05-1992 dk vkns'k feyk tks izn'kZ ih&1 gS A ftlds ikyukFkZ 28-05-1992 dks mlus 'kgMksy TokbZfuax nh A fnukad 21-05-1992 dks tkjh vkns'k fujLr djus gsrq 25-05-1992 dk vkns'k dzekad 365 foHkkx us tkjh fd;kA blds vfrfjDr vkns'k dh voS/kkfudrk ds fy, vkSj dksbZ dFku izLrqr ugha gSA bl lac/k esa foi{kh lk{kh jks'ku yky lkgw us ;g dFku fd, gS] fd foHkkx esa dsfeLV dk in vuqlwph 2 ds fu;e 6¼2½ ds vuqlkj 'kr~ izfr'kr~ lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjk tkrk gS ftlds vf/klwpuk 23-09-1977 jkti= esa nh xbZ A ;g in Mh-ih-lh- ds vk/kkj ij ugh Hkjk tkrk gSA izn'kZ ih&1 dk i= foHkkxh; =qfVo'k tkjh fd;k x;kA ftls Hkwy Kkr gksus ij 25-05-1992 vkns'k }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k A tks vkns'k izn'kZ Mh& 2 gS ftlds i`"B dzekad 3 ij l{ke vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gS] mlus ;g Hkh dFku fd;k fd iwoZ vkns'k fujLr djus dk vkns'k izkFkhZ ds 'kgMksy esa TokbZfuax ls igys tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq U;k;ky; ds LFkxu vkns'k ds ikyu esa izkfFkZ;k dks dk;Z fy;k tk jgk gS A mlus ;g Hkh dFku fd;k 21-05-1992 dks jlk;uK in dh HkrhZ ds fy, foHkkx }kjk dksbZ foKkiu ugha fudkyk x;k] tks HkrhZ izfdz;k ds fy, vko';d gSA mHk;i{k lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa ls ;g Li"V izekf.kr gS] fd izn'kZ ih&1 fu;ferhdj.k dk vkns'k izkfFkZ;k ds 'kgMksy esa TokbZfuax nsus ls iwoZ vfoyac fujLr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk vkSj ,sls vkns'k ds ikyu esa tks fd iwoZ ls gh fujLr gks pqdk gS ftldk dksbZ izHkko ugha jgk] izkfFkZ;k dh TokbZfuax izkjaHk ls gh voS/k gSA e0iz0 jkti= fnukad 23-09-1977 yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx ds laca/k esa tkjh vf/klwpuk i`"B dzekad 249 yxk;r 267 dh Nk;kizfr izdj.k esa izLrqr gS ftuds :: 3 ::Writ Petition No.1430/2001
voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS] fd foHkkx esa e0iz0 yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx vjktif=d½ lsok ¼lsok dh 'krsZ HkrhZ½ fu;e 1976 izHkko'khy fd, x, ftuesa lsok esa HkrhZ dh ik=rk fu;ferhdj.k ;ksX;rk] inksUufr] p;u izfdz;k] dk izko/kku dsfeLV dk in lh/kh HkrhZ dk gS] ftlds fy, p;u izfdz;k dk izko/kku gS vkSj 21-05-1992 dk vkns'k tkjh djus ls iwoZ fu;eksa dk dksbZ ikyu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vkns'k dzekad 365 ls fujLr fd;k ftldh uLrh izn'kZ Mh&2 gS A foi{kh lk{kh us izn'kZ Mh&2 dh uLrh 23-09-1977 dh jkti= esa tkjh vf/klwpuk ds }kjk ;g izekf.kr fd;k gS] fd vkns'k dzekad izn'kZ Ikh&1 fnukad 21-05-1992 =qfVo'k tkjh fd;k ftls vkns'k dzekad 365 fnukad 25-05-1992 ds tfj, oS/k :i ls fujLr fd;kA tcfd izkfFkZ;k us ,slk dksbZ dkj.k nf'kZr ugha fd;k gS] fd fookfnr vkns'k fdl dkj.k ls voS/k gSA** In appeal, the Appellate Court however without appreciating the fact that even before respondent's joining as Chemist on 28.5.1992, the regularization order dated 21.5.1992 was cancelled on 25.5.1992 and that the post was a direct recruitment post, set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, holding that the workman had already worked for six months on the promoted post; whereas, the fact is that it was by virtue of interim protection under Section 107 of 1961 Act that the respondent-
workman was allowed to continue.
Clear it is from these facts that the Industrial Court committed an error in adjudging the entitlement of respondent workman in whose favour there was no accrual of right of the post which was to be filled in by direct recruitment under 1976 Rules.
:: 4 ::
Writ Petition No.1430/2001In view whereof, the impugned order dated 16.3.2000 passed by the Industrial Court is set aside. The order passed by Labour Court on 5.3.1997 is upheld. The respondent-workman is relegated to her substantive status; however, the payment made towards the post of Chemist shall not be recovered from her.
Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV)
vinod JUDGE