Executive Engineer, Maintenance ... vs Radheshyam Mali
2021 Latest Caselaw 7929 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                                  6192/2012
Parties Name                  EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                              MAINTENANCE DIVISION, PHE, BHOPAL

                                             VS.

                              RADHESHYAM MALI
Bench Constituted             Single Bench
Judgment delivered By         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether     approved    for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari and Ms.
                            Priyanka Mishra, Govt. Advocate

                              For Respondent : Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate

(O R D E R ) 29/11/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, challenging award dated 9.9.2011 passed

by Labour Court No.1, Bhopal in Reference Case No.37/2005. By

impugned award dated 9.9.2011 petitioner herein was directed to

give work to respondent Radheshyam Mali on his reporting for

work before petitioner.

2. Impugned award has been challenged on the ground that

respondent has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days

continuously in a year. Petitioner had not retrenched the

respondent from service but he himself left work on 8.9.1993.

Thereafter he reported for work in year 2004. On these grounds,

learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the petitioner/State made

a prayer for setting aside the award passed by Labour Court.

3. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that there is no

error or illegality in the award passed by Labour Court. There

was admission on part of petitioner that respondent had worked

for 240 days in a year and further, petitioner had refused to take

him back to work thereafter. In view of same, writ petition filed

by petitioner be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties.

5. The only ground which was raised by petitioner in this

petition is that respondent himself has filed an application before

petitioner which reflects that he had himself left the work and,

therefore, Labour Court has committed an error in passing the

award and directing petitioner to provide work to respondent on

his reporting on duty.

6. Application dated 19.3.2004 is basis of pleading and

argument of petitioner. In said application it was mentioned

by respondent that clerk has refused to give him salary,

therefore, he went to his house. As respondent was not

given salary, he left the work, therefore, it cannot be said

that act of respondent in not reporting on work was

voluntary in nature. It was due to the act of petitioner that

respondent was forced to leave the work.

7. There is no force in the argument that respondent has not

worked for 240 days in a year. Petitioner has admitted in reply to

statement of claim that respondent was engaged on 6.6.1988

and he worked till 2.3.1993. Said admission shows that

respondent had worked for 240 days in a year. As there was

admission, therefore, there was no need to prove the fact that

respondent had worked for 240 days in a year.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.12.04 14:08:00 +05'30'