Madhya Pradesh High Court
Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi ... vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 16 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5841 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI COMMITEE, SANAWAD THROUGH SECRETARY,
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI COMMITEE, SANAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHASHANK SHARMA, ADVOCATE. )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH SECRETARY,
1. DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DY. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (IR), OFFICE OF THE
2. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, MOTI BUNGALOW, M.G. ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMESH S/O REWARAM NEHALE R/O MOREGHARI COLONY,
3. BEHIND POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, SANAWAD, DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE.
SHRI RAMPAL UIKEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
-2-
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
by order dated 26.09.2009 passed by Labour Court, Khandwa (M.P.)
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "ID Act") whereby
the respondent No.3 has been directed to be reinstated into the service
without backwages.
Facts of the case in short are as under:
02. The respondent No.3 was engaged as a Musterroll employee
on daily wages of Rs.1,823/- per month. He worked 01.11.1996 upto
28.12.1998 and thereafter removed from the service without giving any
opportunity of hearing and retrenchment compensation. The respondent
raised industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner under Section
10 of ID Act. The petitioner Mandi was called upon to participate in
conciliation proceedings which ended into failure, therefore, vide order
dated 16.06.2009, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication. The terms of reference is reproduced as under:
क्या श्री रमेश पिता रेवाराम पनहाले का आवेदनि ददनाांक
30.6.07 को प्रस्तुत दकया जाना सकारण है ? यदद हााँ तो वषष 99
से दकया गया सेवा िृथकीकरण वैध एवां उपित है ? यदद नहीं तो
वे दकस सहायता के िात्र है एवां इस सांबांध में पनयोक्ता को क्या
पनदेश ददये जाना िापहये ?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
03. The petitioner did not challenge the order of reference and
participated before the Labour Court, the respondent submitted a
statement of claim under Section 10 of ID Act and claimed the relief of
reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner being an employer filed a
reply and also raised a preliminary objection about the delay in raising
dispute after a period of 10 years as well as on merit.
04. The respondent No.3 examined himself and he was cross-
examined. Mandi Secretary was also examined, namely, K.C. Parmar
and in his evidence, he not deposed about the delay in raising the
dispute. Even in cross-examination, respondent has put only one
question on issue of delay. After considering the material available on
record, the learned Labour Court found that the respondent No.3 worked
more than 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, he acquired the
status of permanent employee and before terminating him from service
no retrenchment compensation was paid to him hence, the termination is
illegal. The issue of limitation was considered on issue of grant of
backwages to the respondent No.3, therefore, on ground of delay the
Labour Court denied the backwages but the termination has been held
illegal. The respondent No.3 workman has not challenged the denial of
backwages hence, this petition before this Court.
05. The petitioner came up for hearing for admission and vide
order dated 16.07.2010 while issuing the notice, Court has passed the
order for interim relief to the effect that the petitioner is directed to
reinstate the respondent No.3 or comply with the provisions contained in
Section 17-B of the ID Act. Petitioner chosen to reinstate the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
No.3 into the service instead of paying him last wages drawn in
compliance of Section 17-B of the ID Act. Therefore, from the said date
the respondent is working in the Mandi on the same status.
06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an
inordinate delay in raising the dispute before the Labour Court, the
respondent was discontinued from the service in the year 1998, he
remained silent and first time approached the Labour Commissioner in
2009, the conciliation proceedings ended into failure, the reference
ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay. In support of his
contention he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Prabhakar v/s Joint Director, Sericulture
Department and another (2015) 15 SCC 1 and order passed by this
Court in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s Ramesh Chandra S/o
Mangilal in M.P. No.124/2019 decided on 21.08.2019 where the award
has been set aside on the ground of delay.
07. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of
this judgment by submitting that there is no period of limitation
prescribed under Section 10 of ID Act, therefore, in case of termination
and if there is no limitation then the Labour Court has rightly decided
the terms of reference.
08. Under the provisions of ID Act, the dispute cannot be
directly filed before the Labour Court unless it is first raised before the
Labour Commissioner. Labour Commissioner is required to proceed for
conciliation proceeding and if conciliation proceeding fails then sends a
report to the Government for sending a dispute to the Labour Court. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
State Government after considering the report if finds that any industrial
dispute does exist then refer it to the Labour Court for adjudication.
09. In this process there is no period of limitation prescribed in
the ID Act. Once the Government has found that the industrial dispute
exists and same is liable to be referred then the Labour Court is only
required to answer the terms of reference. In terms of reference, no such
issue of limitation was there. Although, the petitioner raised an objection
by way of written statement about the delay but issue of limitation was
not included in the term of retrenchment by the Government. The
petitioner did not challenge term of reference before the High Court and
participated in the proceedings, therefore, in absence of any evidence
and material under Section 227 of the Constitution of India the
interference is very limited in the award passed by the Labour Court.
10. Even otherwise, after the interim order passed by this Court,
the respondent No.3 is working with the petitioner since last more than
13 years, no such complaint has been reported about his working. The
Apex Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray and Others
(2017) 3 SCC 436 directed State of Madhya Pradesh to grant the status
of permanent employee to daily rated employees thereafter the
Government of Madhya Pradesh came up with the policy dated
07.10.2016 for those who are working as daily wager / temporary
employee for last more than 10-20 years. Therefore, discontinuing him
from service after 13 years would be very harsh especially when the
period of delay has already been considered for denying the backwages
for which he has happily accepted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
11. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 17-10-2023
15:41:32
