--SS^^^s^SSSSSSysxwwiSiwvK 161 THE HIGH ecUBT OF JUDIBATURE AT JABALroR (M.P.) wair pErmoN 03.^6 012 op 199°._ WRIT ffirmcN UMDER ARTELE 226/22? QF THE coKisriruTK^ OF DMDIA. periTimER s 1- f f' y i r. ^v .^ss^^s.s^ -^,<rt.'? -. '-"/J~ -2- nager, M.P.Khadi Graaodyog Board,throgh Dlrectca- Karyalaya Sadan, Swachedan Kendra, Near City Stat le(| Pandarl, Ralpur. tj.P. tenager/ Dlrect or M»P.Khadi Sraaodyog Board, Bhopal, District Bhopal. 1:"^1 ^'. (Versus) \\ -^ -^ '"••?.. BESPONEENTSs f-^r Presiding Officer Labour Court Raipur (ki.P.). 2- ^ Jawaharlal S/0 Shrl Agarsaa, aged about 35 years, 3- [L. ^ama.l Rrasad S/0 Sheetaldas aged about 35 years, Both resident of through Alaurau Sunhare, Grani Sanyasipara, [I Khamfcaral, Ralpur, Dlst-t. Raipur. I- PARTICULARS OF THE iCTinffljER i AS QIVEN IN THE Cfl.JSE TITLE ABOVE. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPWiDBfl'S s ill.i^I ^ /IF^ ^t HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 5600 of 1999 Petitioaer Maaager, M.P.Khadi Gramodyog Board aad another Versus Respondents Presiduig Officer Labour Court, Raipur aad others Post for order on ^/ March, 2006. Sd/- satish K. Agiuhotri Judge ^6.37'2aao- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 5600 of 1999 Petitioner Manager, M.P.Khadi Grainodyog Board aad anofher Versus Respondents Presiding OflScer Labour Court, Raipur aud ofliei-s Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate with Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for fhe respondents No. 2 and 3. (^" ORDER ( March, 2006) 1. The present petition impugns the award dated 12.1.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur in Case No. 24/95 I. D. Act/reference whereby termiaation of fhe service of fhe respondents No. 1 and 2 was declared as invalid and iaiproper, and reinstateinent of fhe \ respondents No. 1 aad 2 in service with 50% back wages was ordered. 2. The facts ui niitsheU are fhat the respoadents No. 2 and 3 raised a dispiite before fhe Deputy Labour Coininissioner stating that fhe serviccs of fhe respondents No. 2 and 3 have been tenniaated by the petitioner-Board ia October 1989, illegaUy, when the Respondents No. 2 aad 3 had been worked as regular employees for niore fhan one year. 3. The Deputy Labour Comrnissioner referred fhe matter to fhe Laboiir Coiut uiider Section 10 of the Indiistnal Disputes Act 1947 to the foUowing effect "Whether termination of services of Jawaharlal and Kamal Prasad was legal aad proper, if not, what relief, they are entitled to and what direction can be passed agaiast the eniployer y ^ 4. The labour Court issued notice to the petitioner-Board. The petitioner- Board represented throughout before the Labour Court without filing any reply or producing any evidence or documents to rebut the contents ofstatenients ofclaim filed by the Respondents No. 2 aud 3. 5. After having exainined the depositions offhe respoadents No. 2 and 3 and deposition of one Shri Milaurain, who was landlord of fhe respondeats No. 2 and 3 and fiirther after haviag examuied fhe records fhe Laboiu- Court, came to the conchision fhat the respoudents No. 2 and 3 have worked for more than six months and services offhe respondents No. 2 aad 3 have been terminated without any notice, enquiiy and wifhout paynient of retrenchineiit allowance. Accordingly, the Labour Court came to fhe concliision that the terinination order passed against the respondents No. 2 aad 3 are invalid aad iinproper. The petitioner-Board was directed to reinstate the respondents No. 2 and 3 in service with 50% baclc wages by award dated 12.1.1999. 6. The petitioner has filed fhis writ petition iinder Article 226/227 offhe Constitution of India on 21.12.1999, pi-ayiiig for quashing of the award dated 12.1.1999 ui fhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Pursuant to tfae reorgaaization of the original State of Madhya Pradesh on Ist Noveiaber, 2000, this High Coiirt carue iiito existence and the instant petition was transferred to fhis Court. 7. The notices were issued in fhis petition to the respoudents but no stay of the unpugned a-ward was granted, Leamed counsel for the petitioner-Board subinits fhat fhe Respondents No, 2 aad 3 have been reinstated and tfae back wages, as ordered by the Labour Court, have been paid. 8. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner-Board subiuits that the impiigned award passed by the Labour Court is bad on the ground ^ that the euiployees have failed to prove as to whether they have worked for inore fhan 240 days m. a calendar year. Leamed counsel furfher contended fhat fhere was no specific plea fhat the employees/respondents had worked for inore than 240 days aad as such the finding of fhe Labour Court that fhey have worked for inore thaa six inonths was erroneous. ' The petitioner has ineekly contended fhat the award is void as fhe provisions ofSection 25-A offhe M.P. Industnal Disputes Rules, 1957 (for short 'fhe Rules, 1957') have not been coinplied with. Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1957 provides for ackaowledginent and pubUcation of report aad awards. 10. In response, Shri Kishore Bhadiiri, learaed counsel assisted by Shri Roop Naik, leanicd counsel for ttie respondents No. 2 aud 3 subirutted (hat the employees have categoricaUy stated in fheir statements ofclaictt that fhey have worked contiauously for more than a year aad the employees were paid salary afiter giving the receipt by signing in^ the icgister. The register was produced aad fhe same was examined by fhe Laboiir Court. The siibmission of fhe petitioner that fhe respondents/eiaployees have fafled to prove fhat they have worked for inore than 240 days is not siistaiiiable in view of fhe fact that fhe petitioner-Board was represented throughout before fhe Labour Court but did not adduce aiiy evidence contrary to fhe statements ofclaun fUed by the respondents/employees. 11. After havuig heard leanied counsel for fhe parties and having perused fhe records, it is evident that fhe respondents/employees have examiued themselves aad one other witness in support of fheir case. The petitioner-Board was given opportunity to produce evidence and fhe witnesses biit the petitioner-Board did not avail fhe opportunity. However the petitioner-Board did cross-examine aU ffae Jhree 4 witaesses of fhe respondents/einployees. The Labonr Court had examiaed fhe register whereiu the respondents/eniployees have put fheir signature in receipt ofthe payment offheir salary for about 15 to 16 inonfhs. 12. In reply to fhe contention offhe petitioner-Board with regard to non- compUance of llie provisions of Rzile 25-A of fhe Rules 1957, it is submitted by leamed counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 that ttiis Rule provides for procedure and it does not prejudice the interest of the petitioner-Board. 13. In fl.ie present case it is not eslablished that fb.e report was not properly acknowledged and fh.e award was not pubUshed. The petitioner-Board was also given a copy of fhe award which fhe petitioner-Board has unpiigned in fhis petition. Hence, t ani of fhe considered view fhat tlie contention of fhe petitioner with regard to non-coinpliance of the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules, 1957 is not sustainable, forwant ofsufficient inaterial. 14. Leamed counsel for the petitioner ptaced reUance on the decisions of \ the Supreme Court ia fhe case ofState of M.P. & others Vs. Arjunlal Rajak (2006 AIR SCW 1128), State of Himachal Pi-adesh through the Secretary, Agricultuie to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nodha Ram and others (AIR 1997 SC 1445} a&d Executive Eag?nee» (State of Karnataka) Vs. K. Somasetty and others (AIR 1997 SC 2663). I have gone fhrough the decisions offhe Siipreme Court cited by leamed coiuisel for fhe petitioner-Board. In aU fhe cases the facts involved were that the employees were engaged for a specific project aad fheir services caine to be tenninated after fhe project, wherein fhey were employed, was closed. The case of fhe petitioner is not that fhe respondents No. 2 and 3 were employed m a particular project 'o which has been closed, leadiag to termiaation of services of the respondents No, 2 and 3. 15. It is weU nigh settled, ia view of fhe various decisions of fhe Suprerae Coiirt that fhe High Court whUe exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has Kmited jurisdiction fhat luiless there is any grave miscamage of justice or flagrant violation of law or the Court has inis-directed its order on law aad fact, fhe High Court shonld resti-ain itself froni uiterfering wifh such fiitding made by the courts below. In Waryan Sin^i and another Vs. Amarnath and anotlser [A.I.R, 1954 S.C. 215] fhe Supreme Court held that fhe power of superintendence confen-ed by Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India be exercised most sparingly aad only in appropriate cases in order to keep fhe siibordiaates courts withia fhe boiinds oftheir aufhority and not for correctiag inere errors. 16. In case of Sree Jaia Swetambar Terapanthi VId (8) v. Phndan Sia^h and others (AIR 1999 S,C. 2322), the Supreme Court in para- 12 has held as iinder:- "It may be poiated out fhat it is one fbing to conclude that the trial Court has not recorded its prima facie satisfaction on merits but granted the teniporary iajunction aad it is another fhiag to hold fhat trial Court has gone wrong in recording ftie prima facie satisfaction and setttng aside that finduig on fhe basis of the inaterial on record becaiise it has not considered the relevaat ruaterial or because it has erroneously reached the finding or conclusions on the facts estabUshed. In the first situation, fhe appeUate Court will be justified ui iipsetting fhe order under appeal even wifhout gomg uito the inerits of fhe case biit ni fhe second eveutualily, it cannot set aside fhe impugned order without discussing the m.aterial on recoid and recording a coutrary fuidiag. The High Coiirt proceeded to set aside fhe ordcr of fhe trial Coiirt on ttie first ground igaoring the aforemeiitioned findings offhe trial Court, the order under appeal is, fherefore, unsustaiciable. V 18. 'l.; 17. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Ral & others (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3044), the Supreine Court reiterated the lcgal position of law as setded earlier by the Supreine Court in catena ofdecisions ttiat ttie High Court in supervisory jurisdiction would not convert itsetf into a court of appeal aad indulge ui the re-appreciation of evidence or evaluation of errors or correct errors in drawing inference or correct inere techiucal or formal emors, After conclusion of fhe argunients leamed counsel for fhe petitioner- Board has filed a copy of fhe judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court iu fhe case of M. P. Housing Board and another Vs. Manoj Shrivastaya { (2006) 2 SCC702}, wherein (he Supreme Court in para 17 has obsei-ved as under: "17, It is now weU setfled that only because a person had been working for inore than 240 days, he does not derive aay legal right to be regularized in service." In the present case fhe question of regularization is not an issue, as such fhe above decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case. 19\ Haviug considered aU the facts offhe case, it is found fhat there is no perversity or irregularity in passio.g the award of the Labour Court which needs interference by this Court under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India. The awaid is based on the snfficient evidence and proper application oflaw. 20. For the reasons stated-above, ttus petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satfsh K. Agnlhotri Judge 'hEiltur