Lekhraj Jaiswal vs Chief Conservator Of Forest ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5817 MP

                                                              1
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                  ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 7091 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           LEKHRAJ JAISWAL S/O SHRI SHIV PRASAD JAISWAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CHOUKIDAR
                           R/O 7 NUMBER NEAR R.T.O OFFICE BEHIND SULABH
                           COMPLEX PHOTOCOPY SHOP HABIBGANJ BHOPAL,
                           DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI R.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (BHOPAL CIRCLE)
                           FOREST DIVISION OFFICER BHOPAL 74 BUNGALOW
                           KHEL PARISAR LINK ROAD NO. 1, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning validity of the award passed by the Labour Court on 13.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Labour Court answered the reference made to it with a question to be adjudicated and after framing issue and recording the witnesses, came to a conclusion that termination of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947'). However, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:49:24 PM

Labour Court was of the opinion that considering the period of service rendered by the petitioner i.e. with effect from June 2012 to February 2013, the direction for reinstatement in service is not proper and, therefore, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid award is liable to be set aside only on the ground that instead of compensation, the direction should have been given for reinstatement of petitioner in service. He has submitted that when Labour Court has found that termination of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then instead of awarding compensation, direction for reinstatement in service

should have been passed mandatorily.

Shri Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supports the award passed by the Labour Court and submits that the Supreme Court consistently is of the view that when services rendered by an employee is not too long then instead of direction for reinstatement in service, compensation should be awarded. According to Shri Soni, the Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde and Others (2017) 11 SCC 244 has modified the relief granted by the Labour Court and in lieu of reinstatement, compensation has been awarded. He further submits that recently the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai reported in 2019(4) M.P.L.J. 19 has also laid down that after long lapse of termination and considering the period of service rendered if that is not too long, the order of reinstatement is not proper and, therefore, the Court should award compensation. Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is relevant which reads as under:-

"13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:49:24 PM

view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra)."

Although in SLP (Civil) No.8393 of 20022-Jeetubha Khansangji Jadega Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, the Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the workman observing therein that refusing to grant award directing reinstatement must contain some reason for not granting said relief. In the present case, reason has been assigned that the petitioner has worked only for one year and if terminated from service, the direction for reinstatement, that too after almost 10 years is not proper.

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has rendered the services for almost one year as a Van Chowkidar and thereafter got terminated without following the requirement as has been specified under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and issue framed by the Court has also been decided in his favour but order of reinstatement was not a proper relief to be granted to the petitioner and as such, direction given by the Labour Court for granting him compensation does not suffer from any material

irregularity or infirmity.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the present scenario, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- can be enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed, modifying the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:49:24 PM

impugned award passed by the Labour Court on 13.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed. Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 4/13/2023 6:49:24 PM