Dharmendra Arya vs Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
2022 Latest Caselaw 8570 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                          ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2022

                    MISC. PETITION No. 2654 of 2020

        Between:-
        DHARMENDRA ARYA S/O KALICHARAN ARYA ,
        AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BLOCK C A/15 TANSEN
        NAGAR HAZIRA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (SHRI BHANU PRAKASH SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
        PETITIONER)

        AND

        MUNICIPAL     CORPORATION,    GWALIOR
        COMMISSIONER      NARAYAN     KRISHNA
        SHEJWALKAR     BHAWAN   NEAR    TARAN
        PUSHKAR CITY CENTER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (SHRI KAMAL KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
        RESPONDENT)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing. this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2019 passed by Labour Court No.1 Gwalior in Case No. 05/I.D. ACT/2018(R) by which application filed by the petitioner for reinstatement in service was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was engaged on the post of clerk by respondents. Thereafter on 31.03.2016, he was terminated. On 15.11.2017, he submitted an application before Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation. Thereafter, petitioner challenged his termination before Labour

Court Gwalior No.1 in support of which he adduced evidence. He applied before Labour Court that respondent be directed to produce his service record which respondent has not produced. Petitioner submitted evidence in support of his application. Afterwards by impugned order Labour Court is of the opinion that petitioner could not prove his case, hence, his application is dismissed.

This petition has been presented on the ground that despite order of Labour Court dated 26.06.2018, respondent has not produced service record of petitioner, hence, by drawing adverse inference against respondent, he should be reinstated in the service. Trial Court wrongly interpreted the direction

issued by this Court in M.P. 2076/2018 (Municipal Corporation Gwalior & Anr. Vs. Akash Kushwah) on 05.02.2019 and violated the provision of Section 25 G of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support of the petition, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192 Para 16 in which it was held that employer should follow the procedure prescribed in Section 25 G of Industrial Disputes Act.

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner could not prove his case before Labour Court, therefore, Labour was justified in dismissing the application of petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for.

On going through the record and hearing the arguments, it is not disputed that petitioner was working in the institution of respondent and without assigning any reason, his services were terminated. When before Labour Court he applied for production of his service record, Labour Court directed respondent to produce his service record but respondent did not produce his

service record from which it could not be seen that for how many days petitioner actually worked in the institution of respondent. The coordinate Bench of this Court in it's decision passed in M.P. 2076/2018 (Municipal Corporation Gwalior & Anr. Vs. Akash Kushwah) on 05.02.2019 was of the opinion that despite the order of Labour Court, employer did not produce service record of petitioner.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, present case is remanded back to the Lower Court for adjudication afresh and respondent is directed to submit service record of petitioner before Labour Court so that Labour Court can unearth actual working days of petitioner in the institution of respondent and thereafter pass appropriate order.

YOGENDRA OJHA                                  (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
2022.06.28
19:09:04 +05'30'                                                JUDGE
ojha