Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakib Khan vs Chief Municipal Officer on 26 June, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
1 WP-2489-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2489 of 2013
RAKIB KHAN
Versus
CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Chandurkar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Deepak Awasthi - Advocate for respondent no.1.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner seeking quashment of award dated
31.08.2012 passed by Labour Court, Jabalpur.
2. It is contended by counsel for petitioner that services of the
petitioner, who was engaged as daily rated employee with the
respondent/employer were dispensed with in the year 1988. The factum of
petitioner's engagement as daily rated employee and dispensation of services
was accepted by the respondent. Petitioner, seeking termination of his
service, raised a dispute on 09.11.2006 before Conciliation Officer, Jabalpur.
The proceedings were drawn before the Labour Court and ultimately vide
impugned award, the Labour Court has declined to accept the dispute while
observing that the same has been raised at a belated stage after lapse of 18
years from the date of termination of services of petitioner. It is contended
by the counsel that delay solely is not a ground to discard the claim of
petitioner and this aspect is no more res integra inasmuch as the Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
2 WP-2489-2013
in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing
Service Society Limited and another reported in (1999) 6 SCC 82 has
already held that merely on the ground of delay, the dispute cannot be
thrown over Board by the Labour Court. It is contended by the counsel that
the Labour Court is required to take into consideration various factors
including mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of
service and the ground on which the termination is being assailed. In the
present case, there is no such consideration by the Labour Court and the
Labour Court in a purely mechanical manner has proceeded to pass the
impugned order.
3. Counsel for petitioner in support of his contention has placed
reliance in the case of Shahaji v. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. reported in
2007 (115) FLR 675 . Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra). Counsel further contended
that another decision of Apex Court i.e. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v.
Pahal Singh reported in 2007 (113) FLR 818 has been referred by the
Labour Court and and the judgment of Pahal Singh (supra) does not deal
with eventualities which the Labour Court was required to consider which
were discussed in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra).
4. It is further contended by counsel for petitioner that question of
limitation was not an issue in the reference and therefore, the Labour Court
exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order beyond the scope
of reference. In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
3 WP-2489-2013
Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and another reported in 1979 AIR 1356 .
5. Per contra, Shri Awasthi has submitted that Labour Court has passed
an award which is in consonance with the material brought before it.
Petitioner herein after his termination secured employment in State Transport
Corporation as a Conductor and later on, also ventured upon to seek
voluntary retirement and thereafter had chosen to make a reference. It is
contended by the counsel that petitioner's conduct was taken note of and
ultimately, Labour Court while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v.
Neelam reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91 proceeded to pass the impugned award.
The Labour Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned
award. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2013)
14 SCC 637.
6. No other point is addressed or argued by the parties.
7. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record reflects that petitioner's services were
dispensed with in the year 1988. After dispensation of services, petitioner
did not raise any dispute. On the contrary, the petitioner secured employment
in the State Transport Corporation as Conductor. Later on, petitioner also
ventured upon to take voluntary retirement from the services of State
Transport Corporation and this fact is undisputed and was specifically taken
recourse to by the respondent/employer. It is also important to take note of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
4 WP-2489-2013
the fact that Labour Court while passing the impugned award has referred the
decision of Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Neelam
(supra) in which the Apex Court has held as under:
"18. It is trite that the courts and tribunals having
plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant
an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object
of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social
justice to the workman but the same by itself would not
mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would
automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws
like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally
applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in
certain situation may even be held to be bound by the
doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. The respondent
herein did not raise any industrial dispute questioning
the termination of her services within a reasonable time.
She even accepted an alternative employment and has
been continuing therein from 10-8-1988. In her
replication filed before the Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court while traversing the plea raised by the
appellant herein that she is gainfully employed in
HUDA with effect from 10-8-1988 and her services had
been regularised therein, it was averred:
"6 . The applicant workman had already given
replication to the ALC-cum-Conciliation
Officer, stating therein that she was engaged
by HUDA from 10-8-1988 as clerk-cum-
typist on daily-wage basis. The applicant
workman has the right to come to the service
of the management and she is interested to
join them."
9. A Perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court reflects that principle
of estoppel, waiver as well as acquiescence are applicable to dispute which is
raised in the industrial proceedings and therefore, in the case in hand, the
petitioner having accepted his termination and having opted to secure
employment elsewhere was bound by the principle of waiver and
acquiescence. The petitioner had not chosen to raise a dispute questioning his
termination and after seeking employment elsewhere and after taking
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
5 WP-2489-2013
recourse of voluntary retirement, a dispute was raised after period of 18 years
while making application before Conciliation Officer on 09.11.2006. The
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Cooperative Land
Development Bank (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case.
10. It is also important to take note of the stand which was taken by the
respondent/employer before the Labour Court. The employer in his counter
to the statement of claim specifically stated that dispute was raised after a
period of 18 years by the petitioner and there was no satisfactory explanation
for raising such dispute after prolong period of 18 years. The said stand of
the petitioner has been taken note of the Labour Court. It is undisputed that
the question of limitation was a moot question which was required to be
considered by the Labour Court.It is further important to take note of the
reference which is reproduced hereinbelow:
" या ी रक ब खान पता ी रमजान खान का सेवा
थ
ृ क करण वैध एवं उिचत है ? य द नह तो वे कस सहायता
के पा ह एवं इस संबंध म िनयो ा को या िनदश दए जाता
चा हए?
11. A perusal of the said reference specifically makes clear that one of
the issues as to whether petitioner herein was entitled for any relief or not?
The ultimate relief the petitioner was seeking was ultimately based on the
maintainability of dispute and dispute in the present case was not
maintainable after lapse of 18 years particularly after taking into
consideration the petitioner's conduct of securing employment elsewhere
subsequently. Undisputedly, the principle of waiver and acquiescence came
into play in the present case as on the identical set of facts. The Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27697
6 WP-2489-2013
has already dealt with the issue in the case Haryana State Cooperative Land
Development Bank (supra). Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. The judgments so relied
upon by the petitioner in the case Ajaib Singh (supra) as well as Shahaji
(supra) do not deal with the eventuality where the employee therein had
secured employment nor the question of principle of waiver and
acquiescence was one of the issues in the aforesaid cases. Simultaneously,
reliance in the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) is misplaced.
12. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
