Full Judgment
Writ Petition No.8645/2010 31/10/2012 Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate for the petitioner-State.
Shri Manot Chandurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Heard on admission.
This petition is directed against an award dated 04/04/2009 passed in case No.09/2008 ID Act Ref., by the Labour Court, Sagar, by which a reference made by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Indore, was decided in favour of the respondent No.1.
The Labour Court recorded the evidence and found that the respondent was retrenched by the petitioners herein without following the provisions as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Labour Court also considered that respondent was engaged by the petitioner vide Annexure P-1 and he had worked more than 240 days in the department.
It is settled law that retrenchment could have been made only after following the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was not followed by the petitioner.
The Labour Court found that the retrenchment of the petitioner was illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 but without back wages.
This order is under challenge in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are not correct, but he was not able to point out any illegality.
From the perusal of the record, we find that the Labour Court has considered not only oral evidence but documentary evidence produced before it, by which the respondent was continued under the petitioners for more than 240 days in the last year before retrenchment.
In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court, the contention of the petitioners that the reinstatement was illegal, has no force.
The Labour Court after due appreciation of the evidence has recorded aforesaid findings.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, warranting our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
As the respondent has been directed to be reinstated, which order has not been complied with, it is directed that the petitioners shall comply with the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and shall pay wages to the respondent after passing the award.
With the aforesaid modification, this petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o”
20. 09/2012 Parties present.
The matter is to be heard finally.
Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General submits that he is not ready.
In view of the aforesaid, be listed for hearing on 16/10/2012.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o”
04. 09/2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Agrawal, Shri Anuj Agrawal, and Kumari Chhoti Bai, Advocates for the appellant in various matteRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State.
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited.
At the request of the appellant hearing of the appeal is adjourned for 20th September, 2012.
Be listed for hearing along with analogous matter on the aforesaid date.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju