Madhya Pradesh High Court
Peb Steel Lloyd India Ltd. vs Omprakash Jhade on 27 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 MP-7033-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2421 of 2021
PEB STEEL LIOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 7017 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD
Versus
PRAMOD KUMAR PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7018 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLYOD INDIA LTD.
Versus
SURESH KUMAR NISHAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-03-2025
6.06.29 PM
2 MP-7033-2023
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7020 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
AJIT KUMAR MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7022 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
JAGATPAL NISHAD
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7023 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD
Versus
SHYAMKESH NISHAD
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-03-2025
6.06.29 PM
3 MP-7033-2023
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7026 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
MUDRIKA PRASAD KUSHWAHA
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7029 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
NARENDRA SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7031 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
ARUN RAI
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-03-2025
6.06.29 PM
4 MP-7033-2023
MISC. PETITION No. 7033 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
OMPRAKASH JHADE
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7034 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
RAVISINGH
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7148 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
RADHE SHYAM
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
MISC. PETITION No. 7150 of 2023
PEB STEEL LLOYD INDIA LTD.
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-03-2025
6.06.29 PM
5 MP-7033-2023
MAHADEV CHILLHATE
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Kirti
Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Since the controversies involved in these petitions are identical in
nature, therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these petitions are
analogously heard and being decided by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, facts of Miscellaneous Petition No.2421 are narrated
hereunder:-
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the validity of award pronounced on
29.06.2021, whereby 19 complaint cases have bee allowed with direction to
reinstate the respondents / workmen with full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
FACTS OF THE CASE
02. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activities of fabrication in its
unit situated at Pithampur Industrial Unit, District - Dhar.
2.1. Respondent No.1 was appointed on 08.01.2008 on the post of
Technician, Welding.
2.2. The PEB Steel Lloyd Shramik Sangh raised a dispute before the
Labour Commissioner, Indore in respect of 23 demands for its members
6 MP-7033-2023
working in the petitioner's Unit at Pithampur. Vide order dated 03.12.2015,
the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Indore for adjudication.
2.3. During the pendency of the said dispute between the Trade
Union and petitioner, the Management of the petitioner lodged an FIR
against respondent No.1 & 15 others alleging that they procured employment
by producing a forged ITI certificate. Respondent No.1 was arrested on
25.06.2016 and he was granted bail by the Court on 26.08.2016. He gave
joining on 29.08.2016 but his joining was not accepted on the ground that he
has been terminated from service vide order dated 16.07.2016. The facts of
the other workmen, who are respondents in other connected miscellaneous
petitions are identical.
2.4. Respondent No.1 immediately raised a dispute under Section
33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal inter
alia on the ground that during the pendency of the reference, he has been
terminated from service. He seek permission from Industrial Tribunal as
required under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act because his
termination is illegal and void.
2.5. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application filed under
Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act by submitting that respondent
No.1 was appointed based on the ITI Certificate which was found forged
after due verification by the Principal of ITI, Rewa. Respondent No.1 and 15
other workmen, who secured the employment by producing forged ITI
certificate were arrested and after verification of their documents and
certificates, their employment was cancelled. They are facing trial before the
7 MP-7033-2023
Sessions Court, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2.6. The learned Industrial Tribunal after hearing the parties, vide
award dated 29.06.2021 has set aside the termination on the ground that there
is violation of 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the present
miscellaneous petition is before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER
03. Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that even if learned Tribunal has held that order of
termination is illegal on technical ground that no permission was taken from
the Tribunal, then opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to
prove the charges and misconduct by leading evidence instead of directing
for reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent and
other workmen secured employment by producing forged documents, hence,
no sympathy is liable to be show against the. The Management has rightly
taken action in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment
and Standing Orders. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. In
support of the aforesaid, contention, learned Senior Counsel further placed
reliance upon judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Kerala
Solvent Extractions Limited v/s A. Unnikrishnan & Others reported in
(2006) 13 SCC 619.
3.2. In addition to the aforesaid, reliance has also been placed upon
judgments delivered in the cases of Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation & Others v/s Satya Prakash reported in (2013) 9 SCC 232 ,
8 MP-7033-2023
Karnatka State Road Transport Corporation v/s Lakshmidevamma (SMT.) &
Another reported in (2001) 5 SCC 433 , Bharat Forge Company Limited v/s
A.B. Zodge & Another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 374 , P. H. Kalyani v/s Air
France, Calcutta reported in AIR 1963 SC 1756 , Shankar Chakravarti v/s
Britannia Biscuit Company Limited & Another reported in (1979) 3 SCC
371 and Indian Oil Corporation Limited v/s Rajendra D. Harmalkar reported
in (2022) 17 SCC 361 .
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS
04. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits
that the petitioner appointed retired Deputy Superintendent of Police as
Additional General Manager, Administration who misused is position and
got registered criminal case against the respondents. The police arrested all
of them on 25.06.2016. Later on, they were released on bail on 26.08.2016.
During this interrogation period, the orders of termination were served to
their home. All of them were not given any show-cause notice or opportunity
of hearing and even no enquiry was conducted. The petitioner ought to have
taken permission from the Industrial Tribunal as required under Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that respondent No.1
has not been paid last wages as required under Section 17B of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Hence, no interference is called and the miscellaneous petition
is liable to be dismissed.
APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION
05. It is not in dispute that Case No.30 / ID / 16 is still pending, in
which the demands raised by the Union are under consideration before the
9 MP-7033-2023
Industrial Court. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act put specific bar
that during the pendency of the proceedings before a conciliation officer /
Board / arbitrator / labour Court / Tribunal, no employer shall, alter, to the
prejudice of workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to them immediately before the commencement such proceedings;
or for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punishment
of dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with
the express permission in in writing of the authority before which the
proceeding is pending.
06. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not seek any permission from the
Industrial Court and straightway passed the order of termination. The main
allegation behind the termination is that the respondents procured
employment by producing forged certificate of ITI. The respondents and
other were put to trial vide Sessions Trial No.18/2017 before the IV th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar.
07. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the copy of
judgment dated 30.12.2022, whereby they all have been acquitted from the
charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, the basis allegation on which the respondents & others were
terminated does not survive.
08. Apart from the aforesaid, in this case the petitioner adopted
unfair labour practice against the respondents. In the year 2016, the petitioner
lodged an FIR against the 15 workmen, in which they all were arrested. They
remained in jail for two months and during this period, the order of
10 MP-7033-2023
termination was passed and sent to the home address. Hence, they were
thrown out from the job in the year 2016. In the year 2021, the learned
Tribunal passed an award in their favour by directing reinstatement with full
back wages all consequential benefits. Now almost four years have been
passed, neither they have been reinstated nor paid the last wages drawn in
compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
09. These miscellaneous petitions are pending since 2001. In some
the petitions only notices were issued and no interim relief has been granted
in favour of the petitioner.The respondents are fighting for their
reinstatement into the service before the Industrial Court by way of execution
application. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to accept the joining of the
respondents within ten days and shall pay them back wages and other
benefits within 30 days.
10. With the aforesaid direction, all the Miscellaneous Petitions
stand dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to respondent No.1.
Let a signed copy of this order be kept in the record of all
miscellaneous petitions.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
