Executive Engineer The State Of Madhya ... vs Aatmaram
2024 Latest Caselaw 3100 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Executive Engineer The State Of Madhya ... vs Aatmaram on 2 February, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                             1
                                          W.P. No. 10455 of 2012


      IN    THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                      PRADESH
                    AT I N D O R E
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                    DHARMADHIKARI
               ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024


               WRIT PETITION No. 10455 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE DIVISION, NAGAR PALIKA NIG
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER/STATE)

AND
   OMPRAKASH S/O SHRI CHHAGANLAL YANTRA MAHAL ROAD
1. GAUGHAT, PAKKAPALA JAINSINGHPURA, UJJAIN (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)



               WRIT PETITION No. 10461 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
   NAGAR PALIKA NIG (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN (MADHYA
2.
   PRADESH)
                                              .....PETITIONER
                              2
                                               W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O SHRI RAMGOPAL ANAND NAGAR, PANI KI TANKI
KE PASS ZUGGI ZOPARI NANAKHERA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



              WRIT PETITION No. 10464 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
   NAGAR PALIKA NIG (MADHYA PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGG. DEPARTMENT,
2. MAINTENANCE DIVISION, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, DASHERA
   MAIDAN PANI KI TANKI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....PETITIONERS
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH           -   GOVT.   ADVOCATE    FOR    THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
KACHRU S/O SHRI MANGUJI CHOUDHARY GRAM KANDHARKHERI
POST ASLAWADA TEH. BARNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....RESPONDENTS




              WRIT PETITION No. 10466 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE DIVISION,
   GAUGHAT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ASST ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERMAINTAINANCE E/M
2.
   SUB DIVISION NO.2, TANKI NO. 4, FREE FANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
                             3
                                         W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

RAJENDRA TIWARI S/O SHRI NATHULALJI TIWARI 15/08, RAJPUT
COLONY, CHIMANGANJ MANDI AGAR ROAD UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ABHINAV DHANODKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT .
)



              WRIT PETITION No. 10469 of 2012

BETWEEN:-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT.MAINTENANCE DIVISION
NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM DASH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER/STATE)
AND
AATMARAM S/O LAXMANJI CHOUDHARY GRAM KANDHARKHERI
POST KHASLAWADA,DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)



              WRIT PETITION No. 1050 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.MAINTENANCE DEVISION MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION DASHERA M (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER/STATE)
AND
LAXMINARAYAN S/O SHRI JAGANNATH 3/4,URDUPURA NAGAR SERI
GALI UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)
                             4
                                          W.P. No. 10455 of 2012



              WRIT PETITION No. 1051 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH ENG.DEPT.MAINTENANCE DEVISION DASHERA MAIDAN
   PANI KI TANKI,UJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ASST.ENGINEER PUBLICH HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT. SUB
2.
   DIVISION NO. 3 DASHERA MAIDAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
(( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER/STATE)
AND
BABULAL S/O SHRI BALUJI GRAM PURIKHERA,TEH.UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



              WRIT PETITION No. 4817 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.MAINTENANCE DIVISION DASHERA
MAIDAN UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER/STATE)
AND
SMT.LEELA BAI W/O SHRI KAILASH TRIVENI PALA INDORE ROAD
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)



              WRIT PETITION No. 5700 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
                               5
                                            W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH ENGINEERING DEP. MAINTENANCE DIVISION MUNICIPAL
   CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
ASHARAM S/O SHRI AMARSILAL 23/1, GALI NO. 4, KANCHANPURA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



               WRIT PETITION No. 6618 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.GAU GHAT COLONY UJJAIN (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT
2. MAINTENANCE DIVISION, NAGAR PALIKA NIGA, DASHERA MAIDAN
   PANI KI TANKI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
KAILASH S/O SHRI HARIRAM          GRAM   KANDHARKHERI       POST
AASLAWADA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



               WRIT PETITION No. 6619 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. GOVT. THRU.ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC
1.
   HEALTH ENG.DEPT.BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT ZONE
                             6
                                         W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT
3.
   CIRCLE UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPT
4. MAINTENANCE DIVISION, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM DASHERA
   MAIDAN PANI KI TANKI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
BHOLARAM S/O SHRI MANGILAL GRAM KANDHARKHERI POST
AASLAWADA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



              WRIT PETITION No. 6625 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. GOVT. PUBLIC
1. HEALTH   ENG.DEPT.,GAUGHAT DIVISION     UJJAIN  (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PHE, GAU GHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PHE, INDORE ZONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SECRETARY, GOVT. OF M.P., PHE, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
4.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
ANUJ RAWAL S/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA RAWAL 44/5 GANESH
WATIKA ANKPAT MARG UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT)



              WRIT PETITION No. 12667 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
                             7
                                         W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

   SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENGINEERING DEPT. GAU, GHAT COLOLY,
   UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE    ENGINEER    PUBLIC   HEALTH  ENGINEERING
2. DEPT.MAINTENANCE DIVI. NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM DASHERA
   MAIDAN APNI KI TANKI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
MAHESH CHANDRA S/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA 20/7, KANCHANPURA,
MAKSI RAOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS




              WRIT PETITION No. 12668 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.GAU GHAT COLONY UJJAIN (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE    ENGINEER    PUBLIC   HEALTH  ENGINEERING
2. DEPT.MAINTENANCE DIVISION NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM DASHERA
   MAIDAN PANI KI TANKI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
SANTOSH S/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA 20/7 KANCHANPURA MAKSI
ROAD UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS



              WRIT PETITION No. 13822 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.GAU GHAT COLONY UJJAIN (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
2. EX.ENGINEER   PUBLIC    HEALTH    ENGINEERING    DEPT.
                                                                    8
                                                                                                  W.P. No. 10455 of 2012

    MAINTENANCE DIV. NAGAR PALIA NIGAM DASHERA MAIDAN PANI
    KI TANKI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
GOVERDHAN S/O SHRI BALUJI                                                      CHOUHAN                   GRAM              BADWAI
TEH.GHATIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SANJAY                        KUMAR              KARANJAWALA,                        ADVOCATE                  FOR           THE
RESPONDENT)



                                 WRIT PETITION No. 13829 of 2013

BETWEEN:-
   SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. GOVT.
1. PUBLIC HEALTH ENG.DEPT.GAU GHAT COLONY UJJAIN (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   EXECUTIVE    ENGINEER,P.H.E.  DEPARTMENT   MAINTENANCE
2. DIVISION ,NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM DASHERA MAIDAN PANI KI TANKI
   UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
( SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
SANJAY S/O SHRI BAGDIRAM GRAM BADWAI TEH.GHATIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
 (SHRI SANJAY KUMAR KARANJAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)
...........................................................................................................................................

           These petitions coming on for order this day, the court passed the

following:

                                                             ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid batch of writ petitions,

viz..W.P. No. 10455/2012, W.P. No. 10461/2012, W.P. No. 10464/2012, W.P. No. 10466/2012, W.P. No. 10469/2012, W.P. No. 1050/2013, W.P. No. 1051/2013, W.P. No. 4817/2013, W.P. No. 5700/2013, W.P. No. 6618/2013, W.P. No. 6619/2013, W.P. No. 6625/2013, W.P. No. 12667/2013, W.P. No. 12668/2013, W.P. No. 13822/2013, W.P. No. 13829/2013.

Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No.10455/2012 are taken up.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/State being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court in case no. 61/2009/IDR in award dated 01.12.2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the due to failure of reconciliation proceedings, the Dy. Labor Commissioner has referred the Reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Act before the Labour Court Ujjain for adjudication that application filed by the respondent/workman was reasonable? If yes then respondent/workman's removal from service in 1994 was legal and if not then to what extent the respondent/workman is entitled to get the relief and what instructions be issued to the employer. The respondent/workman submitted a statement of claim before the Labour Court stating that he had worked as Helper from 01.01.1991 and he was discontinued from service on 01.04.1994 by an oral order and therefore the alleged discontinuance from service amounts to illegal retrenchment and respondent/workman is entitled for reinstatement with full backwages. Petitioners/State have duly

filed reply to the said statement of claim. Labour Court, Ujjain has passed the impugned award while allowing the application of respondent/workman preferred u/S 10 of the Act challenging his removal from service. Hence, the present petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed error of law apparent on the face of record in passing the impugned order against the petitioners/State as respondent/workman is not entitled for reemployment because he was never engaged as a regular employee and he was a daily wager. It is further submitted that learned Labour Court has failed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner/State ,in as much as, it has been clearly mentioned in the reply that respondent/workman at no point of time worked regularly with the department. Learned Labour Court further failed to consider that principle of retrenchment is not applicable in respect of such employees whose status has not been defined in Section 2 of the S.S.O and according to Section 2 of the S.S.O, it is necessary that the employee should be appointed on a clear vacant post. In the instant case, respondent/workman has failed to prove that his initial appointment was on a clear vacant post after following recruitment rules and valid selection process. Learned Labour Court further failed to consider that respondent/workman has approached the Court after delay of 14 years. Learned Labour Court merely on the basis of continuous work of respondent/workman for number of years as daily wager has directed to reinstate the him which is not warranted.

4. In support of contention, learned counsel for the petitioners/State has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Others reported in

2006(4)SCC 1.

5. Under such circumstances, the petition may be allowed setting aside the impugned award directing the petitioner/State for reinstatement of respondent/workman in service.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman submitted that as per the impugned award, neither the petitioners/State has reinstated the respondent/workman nor he was paid wages as per the provisions of Sec 17 B of the Act. He further submitted that the instant petition has been filed with a delay of one year after passing of the award on 01.12.2011. Hence, the same ought to have dismissed on the ground of delay itself. The Labour Court had requisitioned the record pertaining to the respondent/workman regarding his tenure of work. Labour Court had further directed the petitioners/State to produce the record regarding attendance and wages paid to the respondent/workman which have not been produced. In the absence of such record, learned Labour Court has passed the award in favour of respondent/workman. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Apex Court as well as this Court which are as under:

(i) Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Mahak Singh & Other reported in SCC 2007(L & S) Page 961.

(ii) Director of Fisheries Vs. Bhikubai Manghjibhai Chawda reported in 2010(2) MPLJ 30

(iii) Municipal Coproration Faridabad Vs. Shriniwas reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195

(iv) Mahendra Singh S/o Jugat Singh Vs. Shayak Sanchalak (W.P. No. 1126/2007) M.P. High Court.

7. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act are applicable to all the employees and in case of daily wagers , following the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act becomes important. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman has placed reliance on the following cases in support of his contention that it is mandatory to follow the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act in case of Daily Wage Employees :

(i) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010(1) SCC (L&S) 420 SC

(ii) S.M. Nilajkar Vs. Telecom District Manger reported in (2003) 4 SCC 27.

(iii) General manager Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh reported in (2005) 5 SCC 591.

8. While combating the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/State regarding delayed filing of Statement of Claims before the Labour Court, he submitted that there is no fixed time limit for filing such cases and the State Government has also directed to reinstate the Daily Wagers in the year 2004 and 2005. However, petitioners have not reinstated the daily wage workers. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. On a careful reading of the award , it appears that a reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court under the Provisions of the Act. Statement of Claim was filed by the respondent/workman and the reply was filed. Witnesses were examined before the Labour Court and the witnesses appeared on behalf of respondent/workman have categorically stated that the

respondent/workman had worked from 1991 till 1994. The petitioners/State in their reply before the Labour Court have stated that the respondent/workman has never worked with them at any point of time. An application was preferred by the respondent/workman for summoning the record as daily rated workers are paid wages through muster roll. Learned Labour Court had directed the State to produce the record of all employees who have worked as daily wagers with them. However, inspite of the fact that record was available, it was not produced before the Labour Court by the petitioners/State. The said fact came to surface as one of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of State himself stated before the Labour Court that the record from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1994 was available with the department, but the same has not been produced. Under such circumstances, relying upon the statement of witnesses and in the absence of record as requisitioned by the Labour Court, conclusion has been drawn that respondent/workman has worked from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1994 as a daily wager and it was established that the respondent/workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

11. Labour Court has further observed that petitioners/State before discontinuing the services of respondent/workman should have followed the provisions of retrenchment and in the absence of any evidence in that regard i.e. neither any notice has been served nor any retrenchment compensation has been paid, considered the discontinuance of respondent/workman from service as illegal retrenchment and passed award in favour of the respondent/workman directing the petitioners to reinstate him.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour Court has

rightly passed the award directing the respondent/workman to be reinstated without backwages, and, therefore the same does not call for any interference by this Court, especially taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi(Supra) as in the light of the said judgment, the Labour Court has only directed to reinstate the respondent/workman without backwages and not to regularize him.

13. Accordingly, the present petition being bereft of merits and substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected matters viz., W.P. No. 10455/2012, W.P. No. 10461/2012, W.P. No. 10464/2012, W.P. No. 10466/2012, W.P. No. 10469/2012, W.P. No. 1050/2013, W.P. No. 1051/2013, W.P. No. 4817/2013, W.P. No. 5700/2013, W.P. No. 6618/2013, W.P. No. 6619/2013, W.P. No. 6625/2013, W.P. No. 12667/2013, W.P. No. 12668/2013, W.P. No. 13822/2013, W.P. No. 13829/2013.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge sh/-