RiKBS® 'S-SSiWSK' :l;^^!?^^^^^^^^i;ffi:l^^^^S^^^^^%;^;^^^ ^•^f^^^^'.^^^'^££:^P^^-S:%^^;^S:^^^:?^^^^^^ "-vi •fe;': ^~^K.^"'S^:-^^S^^y^^^ ^^"^1.,. K^y.^-y;^ ^yl^'^^:^'^^^^'''1^ IN .THB.H:ISH.::(33yia' ::0£'M@MX%:.'EE»EeSHt»;'~%B&l,E1« WHlT';PS^te'^®:^^'8^N@4..-:<.'::^;^^ ^.'^SS^ '<e§l*sa ••^'"^3'^^^t ^^•.^^•••-^''".^ .PEO'STSONgR:: iRS^NSNTS s. ^ ^ B M.PvVan VaAas^.Nigsm &):.,- ,'..-'. Beve.ndranagar.B.afcpux', - ...^ thiEe'ugh "the •Da-va.ssuanal, Manoger^ .Barnawagaica .Prsj.ect Pivlsiori, Beveridranaga.r:,:8a3.ptn:«i ':—' . :1! V e r s u s.". ,~ :- ' ^l.Shri-AR:,Quereshi,. • - ' Aged. toout".4©years, / ' ' S/o Shrt Abdul Rajjak.QyeEeshi, Shyamna'gaj'tsR.Bvigram') ^ • Raipur.^ /'/ . • / . . .:;' ', .' • - 2,The PEesiding Officer, Labaur; GauE-ti, ', • " ; • IDu^,M.^.; — .-.,_• . :• agl "^^ •a' .."^t .-.^f' a -^l .'~ai ••a,@ 1 VJRIT;_PSTITI©NUNDER.ARTICIS ,226 OF .THE 0©NSTITaET13!aN,'i£iF.^.33®Ssu,g AF/^ (^ /q, Lt •P 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2604 of 1994 Petitioner Respondeuts Versus A.R. Qureshi M.P. Vaa Vikas Nigam. aud anofher Shri Vinod Deshinukh, counscl for fhe I'etitioncr. Shri B.D. Guru, counscl for the respondent No. 1. Noae for fhe respondeat No. 2. -^ And Writ Ptetition No. 2785/1994 Petitioner : M.P. Rajya Van Vikas NigamLtd. Versus Respoudent Shri A.R. Quereshi Sin^e Beach: Hon'bfc Mr. Jusd.cc Satish K. Agriihofcrt. Shri B.D, Guru, counsel for the Pethioaer. Shri Viaod Deshniukh, counsel for fhe respondent. ORALORDER (19AApril,2006) 1. The petitioner namely A.R. Querestu in W.P. No.2604 of 1994 has chaUenged the inipugned award dated 7.3.1994 passed ia Case No. 6/93/I.D. Act (Rcf.) to the extent that fhe petitiouer was not graxited back wages. 2. The einployer namefy M.P. Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. has challenged the samc iinpugned award in W.P. No. 2785/1994 on the grouad that the order of reinstatcinent is erroneous as fhere is apparent error on fhe face of the record. Both the petitions are bciug considered and decided by this conunon - order in view of ttie fact fhat ffae same award dated 7.3.1994 is under chaBenge iu both fhe petitions. ^ s0 3. The facts in nutsheU are fhat the einployee, Shri A.R. Quereshi, was appointed on daUy wages basis as Driver in fhe ycar 1981. Thereaftcr by ordcr dated 29.11.1986 (Anncxure P/3), the einployee was regularized and confinned on the post of Driver w.e.f. 21.1.1984. By ordcr dated 15.2.1988, scrvice of the einployee was retrenched foUowing the proivisions of Section 25-F of fhe Industrial DMputes Act, 1947 after making p^inent of retrenchineut coinpensatfon to thc tune of Rs. 3282.50. A sum of Rs. 3939/- was paid in Ueu of fhc notice period of one nionfh. In total, a suia of Rs, 7225.50 was paid to the eniployee. 4. Being ^^rieved, the dispute was raised. The Deputy Labour Conuuissioner (C.G.) by his ktter dated 21.6.1993 referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Coiu-t aflter considering the facts of fhe case and depositions of fhe witnesses produced by bofh fhe parties cajnc to the coaclusion that Rule 77 of fhe Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 was not complied with. 5. Shri Vinod Desluaukh, leamed counsel appearing for the einployee subnuts that the einployer has not produced gradatioa list/seniority Ust. Leamed counsel furfher subnuts that fhe eiaployee was dcnicd back wages wittiout any reason whcn it was clearly held by the Labozu- Court fhat retrenchment was improper aad iuvalid, 6. Shri B.D. Guru, leamed counsel appearing for fhe eniployer contends that fhe award is erroneous as Shri R. B. P. Sinlia, ~; who was admitted as einployer's witness, has not stated ia his cross exainination that the seniority Ust was not prcpared and the retreachinent ofthc cinployee was not in.accordance wifh "--<- the gradation list as contemplated under Rule 77 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe pardes and goue fhrough the docuinents appended to the plcadiags in both the pctitions. 8, On perusal, it is found that fhc award is erronepus on its face, Shri R. B. P. Siuha has stated in his cross exainination fhat he was not aware about fhe seniority Bst which was prepared at Bhopal. Shri Smha has also not adinitted that fhe gradatiou list was not foBowed white passing the ordcr of retrenchiueut of fhe petitioner/eiaployee. The Labour Court has pnxxeded on the wrong presuinptmn that fhc witness Shri R.B.P. Smha has admitted ia his cross examiaation fhat fhe etnployee, Shri A.R. Quereshi was not Tetrenchcd after foUowing seniority Ust as contemplated undcr Rule 77offhe Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. 9. For fhe reasons stated-abovc, fhe unpugned award is perverse and crroneous. Howcver, in fhe interest ofjusti.ee, fhe inatter is remitted back to the Labour Court to considcr case of the einployer as weU as fhat of fhe emplo3ree on nierit in accordaace with law. Obscrvations made above wffl not conie in. the way of the decision of the Labour Court on inerit, ia accordance wifh law. 10. Accordiugly, both fhe petitions are disposed of and the inatters are renutted back to the Labour Court for decision, in accordaace wifh law, withia a period of four inonfhs from fhe date of receipt ofa copy ofibis order. — Satish K.Agniholri Judge Bablu