Atarlal vs Appellate Authority Under P.G. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16155 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 3rd OF OCTOBER, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 13306 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

ATARLAL S/O SHRI TETU, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O
WARD NO.15, CRO CAMP BADKUHI POST
CHANDMETA TEHSIL PARASIYA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER P.G. ACT
      CUM    DEPUTY    CHIEF    LABOUR
      COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) JABALPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER
      THE PG ACT CUM ASSISTANT LABOUR
      COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) MIG -10,
      CHITRAKOOT COMPLEX, CHHINDWARA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    WESTERN   COAL    FIELD   LIMITED
      THROUGH ITS MANAGER VISHNUPURI
      BHOOMIGAT KHAN-2 POST SIGORA
      TEHSIL     PARASIYA      DISTRICT
      CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE - STANDING COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND MS. DISHA ROHITAS - ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                   ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.04.2023/01.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.1 and further may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner its own merit.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent no. 3 and further may kindly be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents no. 2 and 3 to make the payment of gratuity along with interest as per section 7 (3 and 3-A) of the Act, 1972.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in view of pendency of physical verification regarding identification of the employees, application filed by petitioner before Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was rejected by order dated 21.7.2022. The appeal had been dismissed as barred by time by order dated 28.4.2023.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that this case has exchquered history. 301 workers raised a dispute before the Labour Court against illegal termination of their services. The said claim was allowed which ultimately attained finality. However, the real difficulty arose thereafter. Multiple persons started claiming that they were amongst those employees whose services were terminated and they are liable to be reinstated. Ultimately, after multiple rounds of litigations, this Court vide order dated 1.7.2023 passed in W.P.No.4717/2019 has held that every dispute must come to an end and it is not the case of the respondents that after reinstatement, the petitioner did not work.

4. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated 30.4.2020; petitioner has retired w.e.f. afternoon of 31.5.2020. Since physical verification of identification of 301 employees who were subsequently reinstated by the respondents was pending, therefore, his application for payment of gratuity was rejected, although, liberty was granted by the Controlling Authority to file afresh application in form-N of Payment of Gratuity Act. But in the light of judgment passed in the case of Sawarjeet vs. The Western Coal Fields Ltd. and others, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority of Payment of Gratuity Act as well as the Appellate Authority may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to release the amount of gratuity.

5. This Court by order dated 23.6.2023 had issued notices and on 15.9.2023 counsel for the respondents had sought time to file return. No return has been filed. In view of the fact that the petitioner was retired by the respondents by order dated 30.4.2020, it is clear that after reinstatement, petitioner continued to work and the case of the petitioner is duly covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Sawarjeet (supra) which was decided with the following observations :-

18. "Every dispute must come to an end. It is not the case of the respondent that after the reinstatement, the petitioner did not work. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No.13240/2012 an agreement was arrived at between the parties, which reads as under:-

"ADDITIONAL TERMS OF SETTLMENT

11. That the Union namely SKMS as well as the claimants in case No CGIT/LC/R/43/82 will not claim back wages as per award dtd 26/3/2015 passed by the CGIT Jabalpur. The said settlement will be binding on all the claimants in the aforesaid dispute.

12. That in compliance of award dtd 26/3/2015 passed in Case No CGIT/LC/R/43/82 the copy of this settlement will be registered with RLC© Jabalpur

13. That the reinstatement order will be served on the claimants through the signatories of the settlement representing SKMS Union. Identification of all the claimants in Case No CGIT/LC/R/88/95(Ramjanam & 99 Others vrs WCL Pench Area) will be done by the signatories to the settlement representing the union in the light of Form A declaration submitted by the individual workers along with the incomplete form B prepared by the management.

14. That all petitions as well as contempt petitions pending before the Hon High Court at Jabalpur arising out of and in connection with the dispute vide Case No CGIT/LC/R/43/82 will be withdrawn by the union by filing necessary application along with the copy of the settlement.

15. Both the parties jointly approach the Regional Labour Commissioner Jabalpur with a request to register the settlement dtd. 18/5/2015 and the additional settlement dtd. 18/06/2015

16. Individual petition as well as contempt petition pending before the Hon High Court of Jabalpur in connection with these disputes will be withdrawn.

17. The aforesaid settlement resolves all the disputes in between the parties."

19. As already pointed out, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding W.P. No.13240/2012 had refused to entertain any new objection to the settlement and has disposed of the Writ Petition in the light of the settlement. Therefore, the claimants/ labourers are not entitled for backwages as per Award dated 02/03/2012 passed by CGIT Jabalpur.

20. Undisputedly, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment and from thereafter, he worked as labourer in the establishment. Thus, he has been paid his salary for the services rendered by him.

21. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further purpose would be served by dragging this issue any further. Furthermore, the order of appointment was issued in the year 2015 after preliminary verification/ satisfaction of the respondent.

22. Furthermore, at the time of hearing of M.P. No.2186/1990, a specific statement was made by the counsel for the respondent that "the question of identification stands concluded by the directions issued by this Court and it has been stated by Shri Nair that workmen were reinstated as per the directions issued by this Court. They are continuing in service for more than a decade". Thus, the Court held that no ground is made out for interference".

23. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) If no final order has been passed in the Departmental Enquiry initiated in the light of charge-sheet issued against the labourers, then the charge-sheet issued against them is hereby quashed.

(ii) If final order has been passed in the departmental enquiry initiated against the employee(s), then such employee(s) shall have right to assail the order passed in the departmental enquiry, if required."

6. This petition is also disposed of in the light of the order passed in the case of Sawarjeet (supra) and the respondents are directed to release the gratuity amount within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The delayed payment shall carry 10% interest as notified by Central Govt.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

JP JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA 2023.10.06 11:18:44 +05'30'