Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Birla Corporation Limited vs Rakesh Kumar Dtar on 27 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 30014 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH
GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND IR), UNIT SATNA
CEMENT WORKS, SATNA, POST OFFICE BIRLA VIKAS,
SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.B. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
RAKESH KUMAR DATAR S/O SHRI NARAYAN DATAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.36, DHAWARI,
TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR, SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical petition has been preferred by the same petitioner against another employee, which was registered as M.P. No.993 of 2018 and decided by order dated 20.12.2023. He submits that this petition may also be disposed of in the same manner as controversy involved in the present case is identical to that of M.P. No.993 of 2018.
2. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.P. No.993 of 2018 [M/s Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Rudra Prasad Tiwari] has disposed of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 28-05-2024 16:49:57 2 petition in the light of order passed in W.P. No.10125 of 2020 and observing as under:-
""For the purpose of convenience the facts of W.P. No.10125/2020 are being taken up.
The petitioner by the instant petition is questioning the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court, Satna dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the reference made to the Labour Court, Satna by the State Government has been decided by the impugned award. The petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages as he has been superannuated by the respondent/organization on attaining the age of 58 years and further it is held by the Labour Court that the age of superannuation of the petitioner was 60 years, therefore, the order of superannuation is set aside directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with 50% back wages.
2. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the said portion of the award claimed that instead of 50%, the reinstatement ought to have been made with full back wages.
3. The respondents have criticized the award by filing petitions mainly on the ground that the Labour Court, Satna has no competence to pass the award as the âappropriate Governmentâ in respect of the petitioner is the Central Government, ergo reference cannot be made by the State Government. However, those petitions have been decided by this Court maintaining the award holding that there was no illegality in respect of deciding the reference made by the State Government because the State Government is also the âappropriate Governmentâ in respect of the employee working in the respondent/organization considered to be a controlled industry.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 300 parties being Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others saying that if the order of superannuation is found illegal and is set aside, the petitioners are entitled to get 100% back wages. However, the facts of said case is altogether different from the case in hand and, therefore, the same is not applicable. In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered the interim order granted by the Court whereby the employees were allowed to continue in service, therefore, they become entitled to get salary, Supreme Court restrained the Government to make any recovery whereas in the present case, the reference has been made to the Labour Court and the Labour Court decided the case, framed issue regarding back wages and appreciating the material fact available granted 50% of back wages, therefore, interference in such finding is not proper.
5. However, in view of the aforesaid when the award has already been maintained in other set of petitions, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petitions for the reason that the Labour Court has properly appreciated the issue regarding payment of back wages at the rate of 50%. Further, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Ishwarlal Mohanlal Thakkar Vs. Paschim Gujrat Vij Company and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 437 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, the interference by exercising the power Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 28-05-2024 16:49:57 3 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible and as such, writ petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed.''
3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of on same terms in the light of order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.10125/2020." Thus, in the light of the order passed by co-ordinate Bench in M.P. No.993 of 2018, this petition also stands disposed of in the same terms as W.P. No.10125 of 2020.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE PKP Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 28-05-2024 16:49:57