Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore vs Mukesh Kumar Bhatt

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore & Others v. Mukesh Kumar Bhatt
Miscellaneous Petition No. 2923 of 2018 (Gwalior): against the award dated 24.3.2018 (pronounced on 2.5.2018) passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior in Case No. 02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference); Decided on 8.11.2024

Advocates:
S.P. Jain for petitioner; Subodh Pradhan for respondent.

Headnote:
(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 25F -- notice to appropriate Government -- S. 25F(a) contemplates two contingencies -- both contingencies are distinguished by word “or” -- if employer gives one month's wages, then he can dispense with sending one month's notice in writing -- dispensation of notice is discretion of employer -- if he pays wages for period of notice and pays retrenchment compensation also at time of retrenchment as per S. 25F(b), then requirement of notice to appropriate Government as per S. 25F(c) is not attracted -- notice is to be given to appropriate Government when employer gives one month's notice in writing to workman for retrenchment. (2016) 6 SCC 541 distinguished. [Paras 14 to 16]
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- Ss. 25F, 25G and 17B -- order of retrenchment (payment of wages for one month and compensation) sent to employee -- order of retrenchment communicated to appropriate Government -- provisions of S. 25G not attracted because Labour Court itself had given liberty to proceed for retrenchment -- compliance of S. 25F was made -- petitioners retrenched workman by following due process of law -- even otherwise, employee was working in private school (since 1994-95) and after almost 15 years, rose from slumber and started proceedings in year 2009 -- suffers from inordinate delay and laches without any explanation -- order of retrenchment upheld -- if respondent/employee was not gainfully employed and payment has been made by employer as per S. 17B, then amount given to workman shall be governed by S. 17B and shall not be recovered. 2003 (4) MPLJ 1 discussed. (2016) 6 SCC 541 distinguished. [Paras 18, 20, 22 & 23]
(3) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 25N -- applicability -- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti -- is an entity instituted under M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 -- it is neither ‘factory’ as defined under Factories Act, 1948, nor ‘mine’ as defined under Mines Act, 1952, nor ‘plantation’ as defined under Plantations Labour Act, 1951 -- moreover, no pleadings in this regard -- S. 25N not applicable. 2017 (1) MPLJ 162 relied on. [Para 21]
¼1½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 25p & leqfpr ljdkj dks lwpuk & /kkjk 25p¼d½ esa nks vkdfLed ifjfLFkfr;ka vuq/;kr gSa & nksuksa vkdfLedrk,¡ 'kCn ^^;k }kjk lqfHkUu dh xbZ gSa & ;fn fu;kstd ,d ekl dh etnwjh nsrk gS rks og ,d ekl dh lwpuk fyf[kr esa çsf"kr djus dh çfØ;k R;kx ldrk gS & lwpuk R;kxuk fu;kstd dk foosdkf/kdkj gS & ;fn og lwpuk dh dkykof/k ds fy, etnwjh lanÙk djrk gS rFkk NaVuh ds le; /kkjk 25p¼[k½ ds vuqlkj NaVuh çfrdj Hkh lanÙk djrk gS rks /kkjk 25p¼x½ ds vuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks lwpuk dh vis{kk vkdf"kZr ugha gksrh & leqfpr ljdkj dks lwpuk rc nh tkuk gksrh gS tc fu;kstd deZdkj dks NaVuh ds fy, ,d ekl dh lwpuk fyf[kr esa nsrk gSA ¼2016½ 6 ,llhlh 541 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 14 ls 16½
¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 25p] /kkjk 25N rFkk 17[k & deZpkjh dks NaVuh vkns'k ¼,d ekl dh etnwjh vkSj çfrdj dk lank;½ çsf"kr & NaVuh vkns'k leqfpr ljdkj dks lalwfpr & /kkjk 25N ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha D;ksafd Lo;a Je U;k;ky; us NaVuh dh dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rk nh Fkh & /kkjk 25p dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k & ;kphx.k us fof/k dh lE;d~ çfØ;k dk ikyu dj deZdkj dh NaVuh dh & vU;Fkk Hkh] deZpkjh futh fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr Fkk ¼1994-95 ls½ rFkk yxHkx 15 o"kZ i'pkr~ fuæk ls tkxk vkSj o"kZ 2009 esa dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh & fcuk fdlh Li"Vhdj.k ds vR;f/kd foyac vkSj xQyr ls xzLr & NaVuh vkns'k ekU; & ;fn çR;FkhZ@deZpkjh ykHkçn :i ls fu;ksftr ugha Fkk vkSj fu;kstd }kjk lank; /kkjk 17[k ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k rks deZdkj dks nh xbZ jde /kkjk 17[k }kjk 'kkflr gksxh rFkk olwy ugha dh tk,xhA 2003 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 1 foosfprA ¼2016½ 6 ,llhlh 541 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 18] 20] 22 ,oa 23½
¼3½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 & /kkjk 25&ढ & ykxw gksuk & —f"k mit eaMh lfefr & eŒçŒ —f"k mit eaMh vf/kfu;e] 1972 ds v/khu lafLFkr bdkbZ gS & ;g u rks dkj[kkuk vf/kfu;e] 1948 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^dkj[kkuk gS] u [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^[kku gS] vkSj u cxku Je vf/kfu;e] 1951 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr ^^cxku gh gS & blds vfrfjä] bl laca/k esa dksbZ vfHkopu ugha & /kkjk 25&ढ ykxw ugha gksrhA 2017 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 162 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 21½

ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24.3.2018 (pronounced on 2.5.2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

S. No.	Date	Event
1	1.10.92	Respondent was appointed in the establishment of petitioner No. 1 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pichhore District Shivpuri as daily rated Nakendar on Collector Rate.
2	13.11.94	Respondent/employee was orally removed from the services by petitioner No. 1 as there was no necessity of his services.
3	2009	Respondent started conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior but it failed.
4	27.7.2009	Respondent preferred his statement of claim before the labour Court No. 2, Gwalior against his retrenchment from services by petitioner No. 1.
5	2009	Petitioner No. 1 preferred its reply to the statement of claim of respondent employee before the Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior.
6	26.7.2010	After due conduction of trial, the labour Court No. 2, Gwalior passed the award directing petitioner No. 1 either to reinstate the respondent employee or if it is not possible then remove him from services after complying the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
7	3.3.11	Since petitioners employer did not comply the said award therefore, calling in question the said award, petitioner preferred writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court.
8	29.6.11	The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioners that it is obligatory on the part of the petitioners to reinstate the respondent employee first and thereafter they can pass any suitable order.
9	6.9.11	According to petitioners, in compliance to the directives of the Division Bench of this Court, respondent employee was reinstated in services.
10	16.8.12	Thereafter, in view of the section 25F of the Act, petitioners retrenched the services of the respondent and calculated the compensation of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 27,652/- (including retrenchment compensation and one month's salary in lieu of notice period).
11	29.8.12	Against the said order of retrenchment passed by the petitioners, respondent preferred writ petition bearing No. 6413/2012.
11	10.9.12	Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court granting liberty to the respondent employee to avail the remedy under the Act.
12	2012-2013	Again conciliation proceedings started before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior as Conciliation Officer but since those conciliation proceedings failed, therefore, Conciliation Officer referred the matter to the Appropriate Government.
13	25.3.15	The Appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior for adjudication of the dispute.
14	August, 2015	Respondent employee submitted his statement of claim before the labour Court No. 2, Gwalior.
15	December, 2015	Petitioners submitted reply to the statement of claim of the respondent employee.
16	18.5.16	Respondent employee submitted an affidavit in relation to the fact that he is not em