The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Govind Bihari Saxena
2023 Latest Caselaw 3527 MP

                              1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                 ON THE 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 11475 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY, PHE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ENGINEER   IN  CHIEF   NA JAL BHAWAN,
      BANGANGA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    CHIEF ENGINEER [VIDYUT SURAKSHA] PHE
      DEPARTM ENT PHE GWALIOR CIRCLE, DISTT.
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PHE DEPARTMENT
      PHE DIVISION DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

5.    EXECUTIVE      ENGINEER PHE DEPARTMENT
      MAINTT. DIVISION NO. 2, MOTIJHEEL, GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.S RAGHUVANSHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

AND
GOVIND BIHARI SAXENA S/O SHRI M B L SAXENA 14B
ASHOK COLONY KHAGSI BAZAR LASHKAR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE MILIND
RAMESH PAHADKE passed the following:
                               ORDER

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constituton of India has been preferred against the order passed by Industrial Court dated 06.11.2019 whereby the Industrial Court has affirmed the order of the Labour Court dated 31.07.2019 by which the application for review was dismissed by the labour Court.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that review was preferred before the learned labour Court seeking review of the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Labour Court whereby directions for payment of Rs. 13,85,865/- to the respondents herein towards difference of pay from 20.01.1993 to 30.06.2014 were issued. It was further submitted that earlier petitioners have preferred an appeal before Industrial Tribunal against the order

dated 3.12.2015 passed by Labour Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 29.03.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal before this Court in W.P. No. 9059 of 2016 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2017. Seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 9059 of 2016, one Review Petition no. 101 of 2018 was preferred, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application for review of the order of learned Labour Court before it and consequently the petitioners have approached the learned Labour Court vide M.C.C. No. 09/A/MPIR/2019 but the learned Labour Court dismissed the said review application and later on an appeal was preferred against this order which has also been dismissed by the Industrial Court. Hence the present Writ Petition has been filed. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that review preferred before the learned Labour Court was on the ground that respondent was entitled for grant of minimum pay scale in the light of Ramnaresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436 whereas the learned Labour Court has directed to make payment to the

respondents as per the pay which was granted to regular employee and therefore, the labour Court was required to review the order dated 23.12.2015 and should have heard the matter on its' merits. It was further argued that this aspect was also not consdierd by the Industrial Court in appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Court in appeal as well as the order of review passed by the learned Labour Court and seeks remand of the matter to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh, therefore while allowing the Writ Petition seeking reliefs as aforesaid.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in catena of judgment this Court has already concluded that the benefit of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) has prospective effect and in no expressed terms it has been held in the aforesaid case that the analogy which has been laid down should have retrospective effect, therefore, the very contention of the petitioners/State is of no consequence and the review has rightly been dismissed by the learned Labour Court in appeal. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the applicability of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) is prospective and the analogy as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case cannot be implemented retrospectively. This fact has already

been taken note of in number of judgments passed by this Court. It is also admitted fact that the order passed by the Labour Court dated 23.12.2015 still holds the field it has not been upset by any of the Court meaning thereby that the adjudication of the Labour Court binds the rival parties in absence of any challenge and since the right has accrued in favour of the respondents after

being classified by the Labour Court and since the order of the Labour Court has attained finality. It is now not open to the petitioner/Stat to question the legality of the aforesaid order in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not point any illegality which has been committed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Tribunal in dismissing the review application and the appeal.

Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, there is no sum and substance in the present petition. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ar

ABDUR RAHMAN 2023.03.02 11:04:47 +05'30'