Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. And Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta on 24 March, 2015
Writ Petition No.2897/2004
24/03/2015
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the
petitioner-State.
None for the respondent.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 26.4.2001 passed by the Labour Court partly allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 31 read with Section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations act 1960 and the order dated 14.5.2003 passed in the appeals allowing the appeal of the respondent while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the issues and the results of the said issues and findings are seen, it would be clear that categorical finding was recorded that the respondent was not appointed on a vacant post of Time Keeper and, therefore, there was no question of his regularization or classification on the said post nor a direction to make him permanent could have been issued. It is contended that such findings recorded by the courts below are bad in law and, therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside.
While filing reply to the application filed by the respondent before the Labour Court, the defence was raised by the petitioner that the post of Time Keeper was not a regular post, but the same was included in the Work Charged Contingency (Service) Rules, 1975. The respondent was never appointed on any vacant post of Time Keeper. He was only a casual labour appointed on Daily Wages on Collector rate and, therefore, he was not to be classified as claimed.
After obtaining the reply, the Labour Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. Though the statement was made by the witnesses of the petitioner, but this fact was not denied that respondent was made to work as a literate labour. The specific statement was made by the respondent that he was performing the duty as Time Keeper, which was not disputed nor any evidence in rebuttal was produced by the petitioner. It was found by the courts below after appreciation of the evidence that respondent has worked for more than 240 days in that capacity and thus Labour Court directed classification of the respondent and directed to make him permanent two years prior from the date of making of application before the Labour Court.
The Appellate Authority has re-appreciated the evidence and has rejected the appeal of the petitioner while allowing the appeal of the respondent.
It is settled law that the evidence cannot be reappreciated by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nothing contrary is placed on record to show that the findings recorded by the courts below were perverse or that material evidence was not taken into consideration.
In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned awards passed by the courts below. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge shukla -