• ,- '••^^^^'v^^^ ^\''e&<-'\.'^^£s:^,-..'''f,^-_.^'''. '• •::'^.:'" . •'' " '•^.^ •^•K... . "':S' ' '• , : •: •j'''^^'\-in^''^f^'^^<f^~'-iv^^ -^S ^^^^^?^,^?-.?!^:?^^c\s^;^^ ~.^^<.^--^^J^^~^-^^J^T'^ ^ ISTBE tO.SU COVSX OF JO'DlCArUKE AT JaBALiPUS W.P.No. _^\'^4i/99 . "? CETITIONSBS . ; State of Madhya.PraaesBthrougfa Sub-Div.i.Sionai '-'ffice.c, Hasdeo Right Bante eaaal,'Wciter Haaagsment No.2, Post DarwaQistt» Bilaspur. -Versus- RBSPOEBBH'ES .al Soni, Ex-Cbo'Btei.dar.ffhary . (Ha'rdi) Dis-fct. Jaajgir, Bistt. Bila^iur. ,- WRIT EEIITION UIIIDER AEriCLE 226/227i0F THE e0EISTITDTS®NH •{'y' OF.ISDffiA. ' ^. ' • .. • '.y: K s c / HIGH COURTOP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Siagle Beach: Hoa'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION N0. 5196 OF 1999 State of Madhya Pradesh Versus RainaEilal Soni Present: Shri Pankaj Shrivasteva, couiisel for the petitioner. Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the respondent ORAL O R DE R (21ST December, 2005) Heard. 1. The present writ petition ffled under Ardcles 226/227 of ftie Constitution of India is directed against fhe order dated 15.1.1999 (Aunexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur in Appeal No. 518/M.P.I.R./96, whereby fhe appealwas disinissed and the order dated 17.9.1996 (Aancxure P-3) passed by fhe Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 57/M.P.I.R./95 was afiBrmed. 2. The facts in nutshell, relevaat for adjudication are that the petitioner was appointed bn 1.1.81 as Helper in Water Maiiagenient Department at Bilaspur. The respondent was proinoted to fhe post of Chowkidar on 1.1.1989. Vide order dated 6.2.1995, the respondent was iattmated that his service would be termiaated w.e.f, 28.2.1995. The respondent filed au appUcation Under Section 31 (3) of the ChIiatdsgarh/Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations 2 Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as '"MPRA") iu the Labour Court, BUaspur. 3. By its order dated 17.9.1996 (Aruiexure P-3) leamed Labour Court came to coaclusion ffaat termination of service of tlie respondent herein, ainoiuits to rrtrp.ndimp.nt aad there was no coiupliaa.ee of provisions of Section 25 (F) of ftie Iiidustrial Disputss Act, 1947 before passing the order. The Labour Court allowed the appUcation directiag that fhe respoadent be reinstated in semce withia a period of fhirty days wifhout back wages ia view of fhe fact that fhe respondent was gainfully eniployed elsewheie. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 65 of MPRA before the Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur. The Industrial Court after hearfag both fhe pardes, by its order dated 15.1.1999 (Auaexure P-5), disinissed the appeal and upheld ithe fiiiding acd order of the Labour Court. 5. The State Govenunent has filed fhe present writ petition chaUenguig fhe unpugned order dated 15.1.1999 as weU. as ttie order dated 17.9.1996 passed by fhe Labour Court. 6. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioner submits that the impugned order of fhe Labour Court i.s, on fhe face of it, erroneous as fh.e Labour Court has appUed flle provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industnal Disputes Act, when tfae appUcation was filed uader the provisions ofMPRA. Leamed couasel further subinits fhat fhe Labour Court as weU as Industrial Coiirt has came to conclusion fhat fhe respondent had worked for 240 days, fhough, no docuinent in support of fhis fuidtag was filed by fhe respondent. It was furfher contended fhat in view of several i^.s's 3 decisions of ftie Suprenie Court termmation cannot be constnied to be retrenchinent. Leamed couiisel placed reliaiice on fhe decisions in Batala Co-operative Sugar MiUs Ltd. Vs. Sowaram Singh (2005 AIR SCW 5514) aad Himanshu Kumar VIdyarthi and others Vs. State of Bihar aad others (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3657) to support his contention. 7. Shri B.D. Guru, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondeat per contra, subinitted that ia fhe present case, when the petitioner was admittedly appointed on 1.1.1981 and thepsafter he was proiaoted to the post ofChowkular on 1.1.1989, it fe not necessary to prove fhat as to whether the respondent had worked for 240 days in a year or not. Leamed counsel further contended fhat ia ftie present case, the petitioner had not coiaplied with fhe statutor/ requircinent of Section 65 (3) of MPRA. The petition be disinissed on fhis ground alone. 8. Leamed counsel for the respondent furfher contended that fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, while consideriiig fhe identical facts in W.P. No. 5197/1999 aad fhe impugned order dated 16.1.1995 passed by the Industrial Coilrt had came to conclusion that the Labour Court as weU as Industrial Court have correcfly decided the niatter and the petition was dismissed accordiilgly. 9. After hearmg learaed counsel for fhe parties aud penising the records, appended to fhe petition as weU as retum, I fiad fhat the petitioner has not admittedly complied with the statutoiy provisious of Section 65 (3) of MPRA, which clearly provides fhat during pendency of proceedings arising out of fhe order passed by the !''S-^ Industrial Court, High Court or fhe Supreiue Court, as flie case inay be, the einployee is entitled to fiiU. wages last drawn by Tiim inclusive of aay mamtenance atlowaace adinissible to hiai under any Rule, tf the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court directed reinstateiuent of au employee. This court has not stayed fhe iinpugned ordei's passed by fhe Industrial Coilrt as weU as Labour Court. 10. The scope of jurisdiction of fhis High Court under Articles 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India whereiu the orders passed by fhe courts/authorities are under chaUenge, is veiy lunited. Tliis court ought to entertaui a petition in those cases only wherein. sonie procedural irregularity or apparent error on ttie face of it or violation of principles of natural justice have been found in the :iiapugned orders. It is weU Digh setfled fhat power under Article 227 is one of judicial supermteiidence which caruiot be used to upset conclusion of facts unless such conclusions are perverse. The Labour Court as weU. as Industrial Court has considered aU fhe relevant facts while passuig ttie iinpugned orders. The petitioner's service was termiuated without giviag aay coinpensation or providnig ari opportunity of heariag, and as such fhe petition deserves to be disniissed even on fhe ground of not fotlowiag pnnciples of natural justice. The petitioner had also not conipUed wifh flie statutoiy provisions of MPRA which is a beueficiaiy legislation as such 'Lhe petitioner does not deserve any syinpathy or consideration in the inatter. Be that as it uiay, findiugs of fhe Industrial Courf; as vveU as fhe Labour Court do not want any interference by fhis court. Wifh regard to fhe objection of fhe petitioner that Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act dealing with case of 'retrenchinent' is not appUcable in an. appUcation filed under MPRA is wifhout aay basis. ''Retrenchiaent", as defined by fhe Supreine Coiut iu catena of decisions is that ''retreiichinenf ia its ordiaary connotatioii is dischai^e of labour as surplus ftiough the business or work itself is continued. The tenn ''retrenchinenf' is suggestive offhe legislative iatent to assiga the term. "retrenchinenl^ a ineaaiag wider fhaa what it is itaderstood to have in. conunon parlance. There are four exceptions carved out of fhe artificially extended meaniug of the tenn "retTenchinent", and therefore, termination of service of a workman so long as it is attnbutable to fhe act of fhe einployer would fatl withiu the meaniag of ''retrenchiuenf dehors the reason for tennuiation. Decisions cited by leamed couiisel for the petitioner are not relevant on the facts ofthe present case. 11. An appUcation for change of nature of service, laay be inade to the Labour Court and reti-enchinent is one of fhe change as provided ia Schedule-II luider Section 31 ofMPRA. 12. In. view of the above, fhere is no iUegality or perversity in ihe order of fhe Labour Court by relyiag on fh.e provisions of Section 25 (P) of ftie Industrial Disputes Act, dealiag wifh 'retrenchineiit'. 13. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is disinissed. Tlie petitioner is directed to reiastate fhe respondent ia ttie service withia 30 days froin today. The respondent shall be eutitled to back wages for fhe period froiu 15.1.1999, when fhe impugiied ord.er dated 15.1.1999 (Aruiexure P-5) was passed by fhe Industdal Court, confinning fhe order dated 17.9.1996 (Annexure P-3) passed by fhe Labour Court whereby the petitioner was directed to reuistate fhe Bablu respondent. The petitioner has not coiapUed wifh the statutoiy provisions of Section 65 (3) of MPRA tiU date. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disinissed witb costs quaatified to be a suxn. ofRs. 5000 {- payable to fhe respondent. Sd/- ~~--— 'satishK.Agnlhotri