Nagar Palik Nigam Ujjain ... vs Mansukh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1415 MP

-1-                                                 WA NO.365/2020

               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                        BENCH AT INDORE
                          WA NO.365/2020
Nagar Palik Nigam Ujjain Commissioner
R/o Nagar Palik Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhawan
Agar Road, District Ujjain M.P
Through Commissioner                  .......Appellant.

vs.

1. Mansukh s/o Ganesh, Notion Mention
Thru. Secretary, Safai Kamgar Sangh 74,
Siddhawat Marg, Bhairavgarh, Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh

2. Jagdish Through Secretary S/D/W/Thru
Narayan 74, Sidhwat Marg, Bharavgarh
Ujjain, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh.        .....Respondents.

01.02.2022: (INDORE):
      Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri M.K.Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents.
      Heard.
                               ORDER

Appellant/Municipal Corporation Ujjain has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 11.4.2018 passed in w.p.no.2051/17 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court dated 5.4.2016 has been affirmed. This appeal is barred by 590 days, hence the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons mentioned in the application are reproduced below:

2. That, after judgment, Shri Kailash Vijaywargiya, Counsel for Advocate gave his opinion and the mater was placed before the Commissioner. As the amount was very high, the matter was referred to State Govt. and thereafter, State Govt. took a view that the decision regarding implementation or challenging the

-2- WA NO.365/2020

order is to be taken at the end of appellant and decision of filing an appeal has been taken. Hence, there is some delay in filing the present appeal.

3. That the order passed by labour Court is completely unsustainable in the light of the fact that no Notification is issued by the State Govt. complying the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1961 to Local Self Govt.

The aforesaid application has been filed in a very casual manner. There is an inordinate delay of 590 days in filing the appeal and despite that it has not been explained properly. No date of opinion given by Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya, counsel has been disclosed. Nothing has been pleaded as to when the authority has taken the decision to file the writ appeal. The Municipal Corporation has its own law department and the lawyers in panel despite that there is an inordinate delay in filing this appeal. Even the officer to gave an affidavit has not disclosed his designation in the affidavit, therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the application is rejected.

At this stage Shri Patwardhan submits that the appellant has good prima facie case, hence the delay should not come in the way of justice. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to declare the writ petitioner classified as a permanent employee with a direction to pay the difference of salary.

Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Court as well as the writ Court have observed that similarly placed employees engaged with the petitioner has been given permanent status vide order dated 29.9.2011 and only in the case of the petitioner the Corporation has filed this appeal. The Corporation being a modal employer cannot apply pick and choose method in the case of similarly placed employees which amounts to unfair labour practice.

-3- WA NO.365/2020

Shri Patwardhan has no explanation to the aforesaid submission, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

      (VIVEK RUSIA)           (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
           JUDGE                      JUDGE



hk/     HARI KUMAR C G NAIR
        2022.02.05 14:35:39
        +05'30'