Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika ... vs Shohrab on 29 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 1434 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA DHAR
OFFICE OF CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PALIKA
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATEEK PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHOHRAB S/O SHRI AHMADNOOR R/O GANDHI NAGAR
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
02. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award dated 10.06.2018 passed by
the Labour Court, Dhar in Case No.43/ID Reference/2017.
03. Facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as
Safaikarmi in the establishment of the petitioner on 20.11.1981 and he joined the
duties on 23.11.1981. In order to ascertain his date of birth, his fitness
certificate was obtained from Civil Surgeon, Dhar. The respondent submitted a
certificate dated 18.11.1881 issued by Civil Surgeon, Dhar, in which his age was
mentioned as 20 years. According to the respondent, by mistake his date of
birth in service book was wrongly recorded as 18.11.1951 in place of
18.11.1961. Vide order dated 30.11.2013, the respondent was retired treating
his age to be 62 years based on the date of birth 18.11.1961.
04. The respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court by way of
reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Summon
was issued to the petitioner for appearance on 25.04.2017. The petitioner
sought time to file statement of claim, but no one appeared on behalf of the
petitioner, hence, proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing
i.e. 21.12.2017, Shri Prajapati appeared on behalf of the petitioner and
requested for taking Vakalatnama on record. Vide order dated 23.01.2021, ex
parte proceeding was set aside and Vakalatnama was taken on record and the
petitioner was given time to file reply. Again on 23.02.2021, Shri Prajapati
sought time to file reply but he did not appear on the next date, therefore, the
petitioner was proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, the matter remained pending for
four months, but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and on the basis
of evidence came on record, the learned Labour Court passed the award dated
10.06.2018 in favour of the respondent directing the petitioner to reinstate him
into the service with 50% backwages. The petitioner did not challenge the
aforesaid award for five years and by that time the respondent reached the age
of 62 years. He filed an execution proceeding claiming wages from 30.11.2013.
After service of summon, the petitioner immediately rushed to this Court
challenging the ex parte award.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a
judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural
Infrastructure Development Limited & Others v/s T.P. Nataraja & Others
reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27 and submits that the respondent was rightly
retired on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service book. The
petitioner came to know about the impugned award only when summon of
execution case was served.
06. The petitioner has no explanation as to why Shri Prajapati, learned
counsel did not appear before the Labour Court after filing Vakalatnama,
therefore, the petitioner was rightly proceeded ex parte, for which no
interference is liable to be called for. The petition suffers from delay and latches
also and on this ground also same is liable to be dismissed.
07. Even otherwise, during the pendency of reference case before the
Labour Court, Chief Municipal Officer requested Chief Medical Officer,
District Hospital, Dhar to ascertain the age of the respondent and the
respondent was directed to remain present before the District Medical Board.
The Medical Board examined the respondent on 09.02.2017 and found his age
50 to 52 years / - two years. This report was received by the CMO in the year
2014 despite that the respondent was not taken back on duties. In view of the
subsequent development, no interference is called for with the impugned award.
The respondents has wrongly been retired 10 years ago from the actual date of
retirement, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly passed the award in favour of
the respondent. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
08. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
