Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Latif vs Kusum Devi on 2 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
1 M.P. No.394/2020, M.P. No.393/2020
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2nd OF APRIL, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.394 of 2020
BEERENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE FACTORY MANAGER AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Dhimole - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.393 of 2020
LOKESH SINGH
Versus
THE FACTORY MANAGER AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Dhimole - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 396 of 2020
ARVIND SINGH
Versus
THE FACTORY MANAGER AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Dhimole - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.401 of 2020
RAVI KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE FACTORY MANAGER AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jai Prakash Dhimole - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raja Bhaiya Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
14:48:33
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
2 M.P. No.394/2020, M.P. No.393/2020
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of M.P. No.394/2020, M.P.
No.393/2020, M.P. No.396/2020 and M.P. No.401/2020 as these
Miscellaneous Petitions are arising out of the same issue, therefore the
same are being decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.P. No.394/2020 shall be
considered.
3. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the Award dated 22/10/2019 passed by
CGIT whereby application of the petitioner challenging the termination
of services of the petitioner after departmental enquiry, has been
dismissed as barred by limitation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of
Helper in Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. Bhilai on 22/12/2008. He worked
for about 3 years without any interruption. On 05/04/2011, Colonel
(Retd.) R.P. Singh who was General Manager Administration in the
Factory lodged false FIR against the petitioner and some other workmen
regarding quarrel with him and with other staff members of the factory.
The FIR lodged against the petitioner and others was an act of malafide
intention so as to create adverse atmosphere against the petitioner and
other workman for the reasons best known to the Management. On the
basis of complaint, FIR for offence under Sections 294, 323, 427 and
506 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered in Police Station Bhilai
Bhatti. Registration of FIR and subsequent investigation culminated into
filed of charge-sheet before the Trial Court. Petitioner and others faced
criminal charges and subsequently they were acquitted vide judgment of
acquittal dated 25/02/2019 by recording a finding that the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
utterly failed to prove case against the accused. During the pendency of
these criminal proceedings, petitioner was placed under suspension and
a charge-sheet dated 06/04/2011 was issued to him. The allegations with
respect to mis-conduct in terms of Section 12(1)(d), (f), (n) & 1(h) of
M.P. and C.G. Industrial Employment Standing order applicable to the
establishment. The workman/ first party submitted reply to charge-sheet
on 16/04/2011 and 17/04/2011 specifically denying the charges leveled
against him. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner/
workman, the Management decided to proceed with the enquiry. No
proper opportunity was granted to defend his case in the departmental
enquiry through any of the representative. The Enquiry Officer has not
recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses in proper manner. The
Enquiry Officer recorded the statement by acting as a Judge with
prejudice mind even without following any procedure. The enquiry
report was prepared but was never supplied to the workman. No show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner, nor even provided any
opportunity of personal hearing on the question of quantum of
punishment by the Authorities which is clear violation of principle of
natural justice and fair play. Thereafter major penalty of termination of
services was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 12/08/2011.
He raised an industrial dispute but after unsuccessful conciliation
proceedings, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication.
5. The Labour Court vide Award dated 26/05/2015 has decided that
it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and liberty was extended to
the workman to raise dispute before appropriate forum. Thereafter,
petitioner raised a dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
(Central) Raipur (C.G.) and again after failure of conciliation
proceedings, the petitioner was directed to approach the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court for adjudication.
However, the said Tribunal vide impugned Award dated 22/10/2019 has
held that application has not been filed within three years from the date
of termination, therefore the application was dismissed being barred by
limitation.
6. It is argued that the petitioner is continuously knocking the doors
of the Court time and again and approaching the Courts/ Tribunals,
therefore the observation made by the Tribunal that the application is
time barred and should have been filed within a limitation of three years
is not appropriate. Therefore, this petition is being filed.
7. The record indicates that the termination order of the petitioner
was passed on 12/08/2011. He immediately raised an Industrial dispute
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Satna and after failure of
conciliation proceedings, matter was referred to the Labour Court Satna
for adjudication and after reference, both parties filed their statement of
claim and evidence and finally by Award dated 26/05/2011 Labour
Court decided that it has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and liberty
was granted to workman to raise dispute before the appropriate forum.
Thereafter, petitioner filed another dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) Raipur (C.G.) and after failure of the
conciliation proceedings and in terms of the directions given to the
petitioner to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication, he filed an application under Section 2-A(2) and (3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. The fact remains that petitioner is continuously litigating for his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
grievances before the Authorities. The reason for rejection shown is that
there is a delay. For determination of period of limitation, Section 2A(3)
of Industrial Disputes Act is relevant and the same reads as under:-
"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to
be deemed to be an industrial dispute.-
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) The application referred to in sub-section(2) shall
be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before
the expiry of three years from the date of
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of service as specified in sub-
section(1)."
9. The aforesaid section itself provides for limitation of 3 years from
the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise. Though the
petitioner has contested the matter at different forums but the fact
remains that the application before the Tribunal has been filed after a
period of three years from the date he made an application to the
conciliation officer. The reason assigned for condonation of delay is that
workman was ill-advised to move to the State Government. The Labour
Court passed the Award dated 26/05/2015 and thereafter on 20/05/2017
he raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
and thereafter the application under Section 2-A(2) and (3) of Industrial
Disputes Act was filed which is admittedly beyond three years of
limitation. There is no proper explanation for the delay in approaching
the Court as considered by the Tribunal but the fact remains that the
petitioner being a terminated workman was contesting his termination
order since from the very inception. After series of litigation, he has
finally approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Jabalpur with small delay of 45 days. He has assigned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17149
M.P. No.396/2020, M.P. No.401/2020
reasons for delay in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to
have considered the case of the petitioner on merits after condoning the
delay.
10. Under these circumstances, the order impugned dismissing the
claim of the petitioner only on the ground of delay is per se illegal.
Accordingly, impugned orders dated 22/10/2019 (Annexure-P/4 in all
the Miscellaneous Petitions) are hereby set aside. There is only delay of
45 days as observed by the Tribunal.
11. Under these circumstances, delay in approaching the Tribunal
being a small delay should have been condoned by the Tribunal and
matter should have been considered on merits. The delay is explained by
the petitioner and the fact that it is small delay of 45 days and the
petitioners have been continuously litigating since inception, this Court
deems it appropriate to allow these petitions.
12. Accordingly, the delay in approaching the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal is hereby condoned. The matter(s) is remanded back
to the Tribunal for consideration of the case of the petitioner(s) on
merits.
13. With aforesaid observations, M.P. No.394/2020, M.P.
No.393/2020, M.P. No.396/2020 and M.P. No.401/2020 are allowed
and disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
