The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Virendra Kumar Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 1261 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                              ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 8256 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                          EXECUTIVE   ENGINEER,  WATER    RESOURCES
                          DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2, SAGAR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCAT)

                          AND
                          VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI CHODELAL JAIN,
                          R/O VILLAGE & POST BARAYATHA, TEHSIL BANDA,
                          DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

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

Petitioner/State has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 10.01.2017 and 13.02.2017.

2. Government Advocate appearing for petitioner/State submitted that challenge is made to award of Labour Court dated 10.01.2017 and order dated 13.02.2017 by which award was declared in open Court. Government Advocate appearing for State has challenged the said order on two grounds. It is submitted that Labour Court failed to consider facts properly. Workman has not worked for period of 240 days. Petitioner has filed a chart before Labour Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:36:18 PM

Court which shows that respondent had worked only for period of 200 days. In these circumstances, Labour Court has committed an error in passing order of reinstatement. It is submitted that there was delay on part of respondent to approach Labour Court. His services were retrenched in year 1988 and he approached the Court in year 2002. There is delay of about 13 years and 2 months in approaching the Court. Reliance was placed on judgments passed by the Apex Court in cases of (2013) 5 SCC 177; M.C. Leasing Engineering Vs. Geetam Singh, (2004) 7 SCC; B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhooramal and (2016) 1 SCC 521; Vice Chancellor Vs. Akhilesh Kumar. In said cases, there was delay of 28 years, therefore, Apex Court held that Labour Court has committed

an error in ordering reinstatement with full back wages. It is submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order be set aside.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that Labour Court has appreciated the facts correctly. Chart which was submitted by the petitioner was also taken into consideration and after appreciation of evidence, finding has been arrived that respondent had worked for 240 days in one year. This Court cannot disturb the finding and may not appreciate the evidence as an appellate court. Findings given by Court below is final. Said finding is not perverse. It is further submitted that in award, reinstatement was made from 09.01.2002 with back wages. It is submitted that respondent had already crossed the age of superannuation and his reinstatement is not possible. Petitioner has only to pay the back wages and salary admissible to him for the period as directed by the Labour Court. Award is passed reasonable and no interference is called for, writ petition be dismissed.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:36:18 PM

5. There was proper appreciation of evidence by Labour Court and findings regarding continuous working in one calender year is not perverse. Further, respondent is only entitled to back wages without interest. In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference, therefore, writ petition filed by petitioner/State is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:36:18 PM