Divisional Forest Officer vs Bhag Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13382 MP

                                                                    1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                                                      ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 3125 of 2008

                                 BETWEEN:-
                                 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SOUTH FOREST
                                 DIVISION SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR, ADVOCATE)

                                 AND
                                 BHAG SINGH S/O S/O MUNNALAL THAKUR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL SIROJA POST
                                 BAMHORI TEH AND DISTT SAGAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                                     ORDER

This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

"(x) To call for the entire record of the Labour Court Sagar in the case

No.31/ID/2004/Reference.

(xi) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the Labour Court dated 16/04/2007 and declared on 17/10/2007 Annexure P/1.

(xii) And also pleased to issue any other writ/order/directions deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The petitioner/employer by filing this petitioner has asserted that the respondent/workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court while questioning his termination. It was stated by the respondent/workman in the statement of claim before the Labour Court that he was initially engaged as Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time:

10/14/2022 5:37:43 PM

Forest Guard on 17/05/1980 and thereafter his services were continued till 30/06/2000 and by oral directives, ultimately, his services were terminated. Assailing his termination, the respondent/workman raised a dispute which ultimately ensued in reference in terms of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and eventually was referred to Labour Court for trial. The Labour Court ultimately adjudicated the dispute vide impugned award dated 16/04/2007 by which the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of respondent/workman without back wages. Assailing the award of Labour Court, this petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award impugned

passed by the Labour Court suffers from perversity inasmuch as while taking into consideration the tenure of employment, there could not have been an award of reinstatement. On the contrary in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul Vs. BSNL reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 and also by this Court in the case of Mangilal Jatav Vs. Chief General Manager in WP No.12306/2016 learned counsel submits that instead of order of reinstatement, the reasonable amount of compensation ought to have been awarded to the respondent/workman inasmuch as there was complete failure on the part of respondent/workman to establish that he worked from 1980 to 2000. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it was the burden which was required to be discharged by the respondent/workman that he had worked from 17/05/1980 to 30/06/2000. A perusal of findings arrived in paragraph 16 of the award reflect that there was complete failure on the part of respondent/workman to establish that he had worked for the aforesaid prolonged period commencing from 17/05/1980 to 30/06/2000.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time:

10/14/2022 5:37:43 PM

Learned counsel further while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar reported in (1996) SCC 562 submits that the reinstatement could not have been ordered inasmuch the Apex Court has held that an employee who had secured employment by way of backdoor entry is not entitled for any relief for regularization, therefore, submits that the impugned award deserves quashment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/workman submits that the workman in his statement of claim specifically pleaded that the workman was initially engaged on 17/05/1980 and worked till 30/06/2000 and this aspect though was disputed by the employer while filing reply to the statement of claim, however, its witness categorically admitted that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 30/06/2000 and the Labour Court while appreciating the testimony of the management witness, rightly concluded that the long tenure of employment commencing from 17/05/1980 to 30/06/2000 was proved in absence of any contradictory material at the instance of the employer.

In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Lts. and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 75, Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs. Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr. reported in AIR 1981 SC 422, Tapas Kumar Paul (Supra), Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Ors. reported in (2013) 10 AD (SC) 89. Thus, submits that since the factum of tenure of employment which includes working of more than 240 days in calendar year has

Signature Not Verified been undisputedly proved, therefore, no interference is warranted so far as the Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time:

10/14/2022 5:37:43 PM

award impugned is concerned.

No other point was pressed/argued by the parties. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The Labour Court while considering the statement of claim and the testimony in support of such claim, concluded that the workman had successfully proved that he was engaged from 17/05/1980 till 30/06/2000. It is also important to note that the management witness accepted in his testimony that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 30/06/2000. Moreover, Exhibits P/3C as well as P/4 which were the certificates showing employment of the workman were also not disputed by the management witness which is evident from the perusal of paragraph 13 and 16 of the award. Though the employer disputed the tenure of employment, however, failed to establish that the workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year.

In the present case, a perusal of paragraph 13 and 16 of the award impugned, makes it abundantly clear that the management witness went upon to admit that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 30/06/2000. Thus, in view of the admission by the management witness, it can not be said that the award impugned passed by the Labour Court suffers from infirmity. Moreover, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the State in the case of Tapas Kumar Paul (Supra) as well as Mangilal Jatav (Supra) have no applicability to the case in hand inasmuch as in those cases while taking into consideration the tenure of employment, the Court came to a conclusion that the employee therein was entitled for the compensation instead of reinstatement whereas in the present case there is categorical finding by the Labour Court that the workman was employed w.e.f. 17/05/1980 and his services were terminated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time:

10/14/2022 5:37:43 PM

on 30/06/2000. Thus, tenure of employment in the present case is of 20 years.

Upon due appreciation of the reasonings as arrived at by the Labour Court in impugned award, this Court does not find any infirmity with the award impugned dated 16/04/2007.

Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE Astha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time:

10/14/2022 5:37:43 PM