Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brij Mohan Verma vs M.P. Powr Management Comp. Ltd. Thr. ... on 13 April, 2017
Writ Petition No. 708/2014
13.04.2017
Shri Manoj Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for parties the matter is finally heard.
Petitioner takes exception to order dated 11.1.2013 passed by respondent No. 2, which in following terms:
^^,e ih ikoj eSustesaV daiuh fyfeVsM ¼e-iz- 'kklu dk midze½ Cykd ua-14] 'kfDr Hkou] fo|qr uxj] jkeiqj] tcyiqj & 482 008 dz-eq-egkiz@ek-lalk-@104 tcyiqj] fnukad 11-1-2013 vkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk dz- 3697@2004 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-12 ds ifjikyu esa Jh czt eksgu oekZ dks nSfud osru ij vnZyh Hk`R; ds :i esa fuEu 'krksZ ij fu;qfDr iznku dh tkrh gS%& 1- ;g fu;qfDr mifLFkfr fnukad ls izHkkoh gksxhA 2- Jh czt eksgu oekZ dks fnukad 5-1-93 ls ns; nSfud osru ,oa Hkqxrku fd, x, vkbZfM;y ostsl ds varj dk Hkqxrku ns; gksxkA Jh czt eksgu oekZ dh inLFkkiuk eq[; egkizca/kd ¼VSfjQ½] ,eih ikoj eSustesaV da-fyfe-tcyiqj ds dk;kZy; esa dh tkrh gSA vkns'kkuqlkj ¼johUnz f}osnh½ eq[; egkizca/kd ¼ek-lalk-½ ,e-ih-ikoj eSustesaV da-
fyfe-] tcyiqj^^ The impugned order though refers to order passed in Writ Petition No. 3697/2004; however, it has its genesis from the order dated 15.4.1998 passed by Labour Court on an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 preferred by the petitioner against his termination. The application was allowed in favour of the petitioner in the following terms:
^^12& izdj.k dh mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ,l-,l-vks dh /kkjk 11¼ch½ ds izko/kku dk ikyu u djus ds dkj.k vkosnd dh lsok lekfIr voS/k o vuqfpr gksuk ik;k x;kA rnuqlkj bl okniz'u dk mRrj ldkjkRed fn;k x;kA 13& okniz'u dzekad 4 rFkk okniz'u dzekad 2 %& vukosndksa dh vksj ls ;g crkus dk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k fd vkosnd dks nkok izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj D;ksa ugha gSA vkSj D;ksafd okniz'u dzekad 1 esa vkosnd dh lsok lekfIr dks vuqfpr o voS/k gksuk ik;k x;k gS] vr% vkosnd dks lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir fd, tkuk pkfg,A rnuqlkj fu"d"kZ bu okniz'uksa ij vafdr fd, x,A 14& okniz'u dzekad 3 %& ifj.kkeLo:i vkosnd dk nkok Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkosnd ds bl dFku dks pqukSrh ugha nh xbZ gS fd lsok lekfIr ds ckn ls og osjkstxkj gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mls lsok lekfIr ds ckn ls cdk;k osru feyus dh Hkh ik=rk gSA 15& vr% ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkosnd c`teksgu oekZ dks vukosnd e/;izns'k fo|qr e.My mlds iwoZ in ij iquLFkkfir djs] rFkk lsok lekfIr vkns'k fnukad 5-1-93 ls lsok esa iqu% okil ysus rd dh vof/k dk cdk;k osru Hkh mls bl vkns'k ds fnukad ls 3 ekg ds vanj vnk dj bl U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsaA i{kdkj viuk&viuk oknO;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA^^ The order passed by the Labour Court was affirmed in appeal which was dismissed on 31.3.2004 and in Writ Petition (S) No. 3697/2004 dismissed on 20.11.2012; thus, affirming the order of reinstatement with full back-wages from the date of termination, i.e., 5.1.1993. Reinstatement as rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner tantamount that a person is put back in his job, which will not mean a fresh appointment as construed buy the respondent. Petitioner is further justified in stating that with grant of back-wages right from 5.1.1993, the continuity in service is implicit in the order passed by the Labour Court.
The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be approved of; therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, matter is relegated to the respondent for passing a fresh order in terms with the order dated 15.4.1998 passed by the Labour Court. Let a decision be taken within a period of forty five days from the communication of this order.
Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vivek tripathi