M.P.Road Transport Corporation Vs. Javed Khan Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Keshav Kumar Trivedi - Court Judgment

WRIT PETITION No.6453/2009 1 03.03.2014 Shri P.K.Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Heard on the question of admission.

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.11.2007 passed in Appeal No.32/MPIR/2007 by the State Industrial Court, Jabalpur affirming the order dated 22.06.2007 passed in Case No.28/MPIR/2004 by the Labour Court.

It is contended that respondent No.1 was only a driver engaged on badli and was not a regular driver, therefore, there was no question of following any procedure laid-down under the Industrial Disputes Act for his retrenchment.

However, misreading the provisions, not appreciating the evidence in appropriate manner, it was held by the Labour Court that the removal of services of respondent No.1 was bad in law as the statutory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with.

As a result, the order passed by the petitioner was set aside and direction was given to reinstate the respondent No.1.

However, no back wages were granted by the Labour Court.

Against this order, when an appeal was preferred, it was pointed out that the evidence was adduced before the Labour Court to show that the respondent No.1 was not a regular employee but this evidence was not looked into and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court were perverse.

The Industrial Court examined the evidence, reached to the conclusion that the documents produced WRIT PETITION No.6453/2009 2 by the respondent No.1 were not only proved but fact was also proved by the evidence of the petitioner that regular duty was assigned to respondent No.1 and that he has remained continuously working for a long period right from the month of March, 1999 to February, 2004.

That being so, relying on the various decisions of the Apex Court, the Industrial Court has reached to the conclusion that no error was committed by the Labour Court in granting the relief to respondent No.1.

Nothing has been placed on record of this writ petition to indicate that the evidence was so produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that the respondent No.1 was not made to work regularly or that he has not remained working for 240 days in a calender year.

On the contrary, the record of the Labour Court, which was summoned, indicates that these were the facts which were duly proved by oral and documentary evidence both.

The attendance registers were produced and certified by the respondent No.1.

The burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that such was not the documentary evidence available.

That being so, mere statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner would not be enough to dislodge the claim of respondent No.1, which has been found proved by the two Courts below.

It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence considered by the two Courts below is not necessary in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court.

There is nothing available on record to indicate perversity of the findings reached by WRIT PETITION No.6453/2009 3 the two Courts below.

That being so, there is no substance in the writ petition.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc