Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rahub Khan on 20 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 317 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER FOREST DIVISION
UMARIA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER FOREST DEPARTMENT
GHUNGHUTI, DISTRICT UMARIA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND
RAHUB KHAN S/O SHRI AMEEN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O KANNABAHRA POST
OFFICE AMLIHA DISTRICT UMARIA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour
Court passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the
respondent/workman has been directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State submits that the
respondent/workman was not appointed on a regular post but, he was a
backdoor entry hence, no relief of reinstatement could be granted to the
workman. It is further stated that in any event, the backwages cannot be
awarded to the workman. The counsel for the State further referred to Judgment
in the case B.S.N.L vs Bhurumal reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177 to contend
that where the workman has worked for a very short period, reinstatement
should not be ordered after a long gap. Also reliance is placed in the case of
Senior Superintendent Telegraph( Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal &
Ors. 2010(6) SCC 773.
3. Upon perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour
Court has held that respondent/workman has worked from 1989 till 1996 and
then again from the year 2000 till January, 2007. Thus, the respondent/workman
has worked for almost a period of 16 years. After having worked for substantial
period, the award directing reinstatement cannot be held to be unjustified.
4. So far as the contention that the respondent/workman was not
employee against regular or vacant post is concerned,the labour Court has not
given any such status to the workman that he would be reinstated on some other
status, on which he was working at the time of retrenchment. The Labour court
has given a clear finding of fact that the respondent/workman was working as
Security staff on daily wages. He would obviously be reinstated in the same
status.There is clear finding of violation of Section 25-F and Section 25-N of
ID Act, 1947 recorded by the Labour Court.
5. Looking to the reply to the statement of claim placed on record with
this petition as filed by the State before the Labour Court, no substantial
defence has been taken by the State to contest the said statement of claim.
6. The State counsel referred to judgment in the case of Prabhakar Vs.
Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another 2015 (15) SCC 1 has raised
objection of delay. However, no such objection was raised by State in reply
before Labour Court. Further, the workman had initiated conciliation
proceedings first and the State is totally silent about the period spent in
conciliation proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the State at this stage referred to the document
Annexure-P/4 to show that the respondent/workman though has worked as
Security Guard on Daily Wages but, did not work for the period as found by
the Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered the documents which were
payment records placed on record before the Labour Court as Ex. P/1 to P/54
before the Labour Court, and given finding of fact of the respondent having
worked for 16 years.
8. Thus, no interference can be made on the basis of document
Annexure-P/4 filed with this petition.
9. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the award.
Admission is declined. the petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
PG
