Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
REVIEW PETITION No. 246 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JITENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI DIGAMBAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O 101,
VINYA NAGAR SECTOR 3 GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY LABOR COMMISSIONER CUM
AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER WORKING
JOURNALIST AND OTHER NEWSPAPER
EMPLOYEES LABOR DEPARTMENT 518 NEW
MORI BUNGLOW INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. THROUGH
GENERAL MANAGER SHRI ROOPA RAM GOYAL
OFFICE AT KESARGARH JLN MARG JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN BRANCH OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR,
CENTRAL MALL RNT MARG INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 2/16/2024
6:57:13 PM
2
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
The present review petition has been filed assailing the order dated
27.09.2019 passed W.A. No. 193/2019 on behalf of the appellant/respondent
No.3.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:-
(A) The review petitioner was appointed on the post of Chief Reporter
in Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Branch Gwalior, since the benefits of
Majitha Wage Board recommendations were not extended to him, therefore, an
application under Section 17 of Working Journalist and other Newspaper
Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1955 was filed before the Assistant
Labor Commissioner, Gwalior claiming difference of wages as guaranteed
by Majitha Wage Board.
(B) The Assistant Labor Commissioner has referred the matter for its
adjudication to Labor Commissioner M.P., Indore. Finally, it was found that
the petitioner is eligible for claiming the benefits under the Majitha Wage
Board recommendations and accordingly the award dated 31.08.2016 was
passed and so also the Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) dated
31.08.2016 was issued against the employer/Respondent No.3.
(C) Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.3 filed W.P. No. 7051/2016
which was finally decided vide order dated 08.01.2019 dismissing the writ
petition filed by the Respondent No.3. Thereafter, being aggrieved a writ appeal
was filed by the Respondent No.3 which was registered as W.A. No. 193/2019.
The said writ appeal was finally decided vide order dated 27.09.2019.
Thereafter, again Respondent No. 3 filed a review petition bearing R.P. No.
1429/2019, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has no grievance
with the order passed by the Writ Court as well as in the Review Petition.
However, the learned counsel has submitted that in fact the writ appeal was
allowed with the direction that the controversy involved in the present case
stands concluded as per the judgment delivered in W.P. No. 17859/2016. The
Division Bench while disposing off the writ appeal has clearly stated that the
judgment delivered in W.P. No. 17859/2016 shall be applicable " mutatis
mutandis" in the present case also. However, due to inadvertence and
typographical error the impugned orders were set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in fact the
writ appeal ought to have been dismissed since the judgment passed in W.P.
No. 17859/2016 has been made applicable "mutatis mutandis" to the present
case as well. The benefit has been extended to similarly situated persons like the
appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been set
aside. In such a situation, a little clarification is required and instead of
"impugned orders are set aside" " the writ appeal is finally disposed off" may
be substituted.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed
the prayer and submitted that since the Division Bench has set aside the
impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Assistant
Labor Commissioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the present
review petition is misconceived, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as
the order dated 27.09.2019 passed in W.A. No. 193/2019.
7. The Division Bench while disposing off the writ appeal has passed the
following order:-
" In the light of the aforesaid judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 17859/2016,
as the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded, the present Writ Petition is
allowed and the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 17859/2016 shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis in the present case also. The impugned orders are set aside."
8. Admittedly, the Writ Petition No. 17859/2016 filed by similarly situated
employees was allowed, therefore, the Division Bench came to the conclusion
that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded and made
the order passed in Writ Petition No. 17859/2016 applicable mutatis mutandis
in the present case also. In view of the aforesaid, there was no occasion for the
Division Bench to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Single
judge as well as the Assistant Labor Commissioner. In fact, due to inadvertence
and typographical error the sentence "impugned orders are set aside" has been
mentioned in the order passed in W.A. No. 193/2019, whereas it ought to have
been mentioned that " the writ petition stands disposed off " in terms of order
passed in W.P. No. 17859/2016.
9. In the event, it is presumed that the impugned orders are set aside then
it would amount to disparity between the same set of employees. Therefore,
apparent error on the face of the record has crept in the order dated 27.09.2019
passed in W.A. No. 193/2019 instead of " the impugned orders are set aside"
the sentence " the writ appeal is disposed off " in terms of W.P. No.
17859/2016 ought to have been mentioned. Even otherwise, the Division Bench
has made the order in W.P. No. 17859/2016 applicable mutatis mutandis to
the present case also.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the Review Petition deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. It is directed that instead of " the impugned orders are set
aside" the sentence " the writ appeal stands disposed off accordingly" is
replaced. Accordingly, the aforesaid observation from the order
dated 27.09.2019 passed in W.A. No. 193/2019 is hereby expunged.
11. The said order be read in conjunction with order dated 27.09.2019
passed in W.A. No. 193/2019. The copy of the order be placed in the record of
W.A. No. 193/2019.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
