Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

reinstate the respondent without any back wages.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that respondent had submitted the statement of claim before the Deputy Labour Commissioner Madhya Pradesh Indore. The respondent was working on the post of Pump Attendant in the M.P. Housing Board w.e.f 11/05/1992. It was further contended that record of attendance and salary of respondent was being kept by the M.P. Housing Board. The petitioners/Board is engaged in the construction of buildings and shops which comes under the category of "Industry". The respondent was terminated from service on 29/02/2000 without giving any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any departmental enquiry. The provision of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Vs Pramod Sharma) Act) were not complied with. The petitioner had been performing manufacturing work and had engaged more than 100 employees. It was specifically stated in the application that the petitioner had been in the construction business and was constructing the houses laying down sewer lines and roads thereafter selling the constructed houses to the customers. No permission has been obtained from the government regarding termination of service of the petitioner. On these grounds, respondents prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages.

4. On going through the writ petition, it is seen that the same has been filed on the following grounds :-

1. No permission for retrenchment was required under Section 25(N) of the Act since the State Government had issued the order for removal of daily wager employees who were engaged after 31/12/1998.
2. Section 29(N) of the Act is not applicable in the present case as the M.P. Housing Board is not an THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Vs Pramod Sharma) "Industry".

6. In the reply before court below, petitioner had THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Vs Pramod Sharma) categorically stated that respondent was initially employed on daily wages and work was taken according to need. It is clear from the attendance register that respondent had continuously worked as daily wage Pump Attendant and he was being paid salary. On the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner, the Labour Court has held that termination of service of the respondent was in violation of the provision of the Act. No appropriate permission was taken by the petitioner before terminating the service. It is an admitted fact that respondent had worked for 240 days in calendar year prior to his termination. The Labour Court had ordered without any back wages.

7. Industrial establishment has been defined in section 25l which is as under: -

25l. Definitions - for the purpose of this chapter. - (a) 'industrial establishment' means - (i) a factory as defined inclause (m) of section 2 of the factories act, 1948 (63 of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Vs Pramod Sharma) 1948); (ii) a mine as defined inclause (j) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the mines act, 1952 (33 of 1952); or (iii) a plantation as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the plantation labour act, 1951 (69 of 1951). "