Madhya Pradesh High Court
Executive Engineer Civil Mp.Eb Now Mp ... vs Jagdish Janardan on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51025
1 WP-1482-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1482 of 2020
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL MP.EB NOW MP POORVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGDISH JANARDAN AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION No. 1484 of 2020
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL MPEB NOW MP POORVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
ANIRUDH THAKRE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the Caveators.
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging order dated 31.10.2019 contained in Annexure-P/1 passed by
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chhindwara (MP).
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that order
has been passed in violation of Sections 25 (F) and 25 (N) of Industrial Dispute
Act. No finding is given regarding violation of provision of Sections 25 (F) and 25
(N) and therefore, no award could have been passed for reinstatement with back
wages. It is further submitted that no work is left and pole factory has been closed,
therefore, reinstatement cannot be granted. Respondents were daily wager
employees and not regular employees. Pole factory has been closed. Labour Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51025
2 WP-1482-2020
has not given any finding regarding violation of provision of Sections 25(F) and
25(N). It is further submitted that since, Workmen are no longer required in Pole
factory and same is not operative, therefore, provision of Section 25(N) regarding
retrenchment will not be applicable. Since, factory is not working, therefore,
award cannot be executed and reinstatement cannot be granted. Section 25 (N) is
not applicable and no award could have been passed. It is also submitted that
evidence adduced by petitioners was not taken into consideration nor discussed.
They were allowed to join on 29.06.2013 and, thereafter, they were retrenched
on 01.07.2013. There was no illegality in retrenchment of respondents. Tribunal
has passed award arbitrarily and mechanically and same may be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the award passed
by CGIT. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed. Evidence of
Workmen was discussed in detail. Evidence which has been adduced by
Management was also taken into consideration. After considering the evidence of
Management, it was held that there was non-compliance of Section 25(N).
Retrenchment was done without seeking permission of Senior Officer. It was
specifically held that order of retrenchment of Workmen was set aside by Labour
Court vide order dated 24.09.2005. Said order was challenged before Industrial
Tribunal. Appeal before Industrial Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated
31.10.2007. Said order was challenged in writ petition before the High Court and
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, Workmen were given joining
on 29.06.2013 and again to defeat orders of Court, they were retrenched on
01.07.2013.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. On going through the award, it is clear that no notice under Section 25(F)
was given to respondents. There was non-compliance of provision of Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51025
3 WP-1482-2020
25(F). It has been stated that Section 25(N) will not be attracted as there is no
retrenchment, therefore, there was no need to comply with Section 25(F) of
Industrial Dispute Act.
6. Retrenchment is defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947, which is quoted as under:-
"(oo) ["retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the
service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include
- [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953, Section 2 (w.e.f. 24.10.1953). ]"
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation
in that behalf; or]
(bb)[ termination of the service of the workman as a
result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its
expiry or of such contract being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] [ Inserted by
Act 49 of 1984, Section 2 (w.e.f. 18.8.1984).]
(c) [termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health; ] [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953,
Section 2 (w.e.f. 24.10.1953).]"
7. Exception given in Section 2(oo) does not cover the ground which is
taken by Learned counsel for petitioners. Termination of service of an employee
due to voluntary retirement of Workmen, on attaining age of superannuation,
termination as a result of non-renewal of contract on its expiry or termination of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51025
4 WP-1482-2020
service of Workmen on ground of continue ill health will not fall within the
retrenchment. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner is unable to bring
out the case under any of the four exceptions laid down in Section 2(OO). In view
of same, no illegality has been committed by CGIT in passing of award dated
31.10.2019.
8. It has been argued that Pole factory is no longer functioning, therefore,
relief of reinstatement could not have been granted to petitioner
9. In case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal reported in
(2014) 7 SCC 177, the Apex Court directed that in place of reinstatement, which
was ordered after long period of time Workman be awarded lump-sum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with the interest.
10. Considering aforesaid judgment, instead of reinstatement of Workmen,
petitioners are directed to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to each of
the respondents. Compensation shall be paid within two months, failing which
respondents will be entitled to get interest @ of 12% per annum. Cost of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded to each of the respondents as litigation expenses which is
to be paid by petitioners to respondents.
11. With aforesaid direction, petitions are disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
