W.P.No.3984/2010(S)
Shiv Shankar Bele Van Mandal Adhikari and others.
(1)
6.5.2010.
Shri Ashok Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is directed against an award dated 3/12/2009
by the Labour Court, Betul, in Case No.04/ID2007 (Reference) by
which the Labour Court though found that the retrenchment order
was illegal, but has declined to reinstate the petitioner on the
ground that the employment place of the petitioner ie Mohda
Project itself was closed.This project was referred in Ex.P/7. The
Labour Court directed that the petitioner be paid compensation of
Rs.30,000 in lieu of reinstatement.This order is under challenge
in this petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that when the retrenchment order was found illegal, then the
Labour Court was left with no option except to reinstate the
petitioner.Apart from this, there are certain provisions in the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which were to be followed by the
respondents. Reliance is placed to Apex Court's judgment in
Krishan Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana): (2010 (125)
FLR 187) and submitted that this petition may be admitted.
From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the
petitioner was engaged by the respondents on daily wages. He
was retrenched on 1.2.1997. Thereafter a reference was made to
the Labour Court for deciding the issues which read thus:
W.P.No.3984/2010(S)
Shiv Shankar Bele Van Mandal Adhikari and others.
(2)
“Whether the retrenchment of Shiv Shankar Bele was legal
and valid? If any, then for which relief he was entitled and
what direction may be issued to the employer?”
Before the Labour Court, the evidence was produced .In
the evidence, the Labour Court found that the petitioner worked
for more than 240 days before the retrenchment in last year and
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
were not complied with. On the aforesaid ground, the Labour
Court found that the retrenchment order was illegal.
The Labour Court further considering the document
Ex.P/7; filed before the Labour Court found that the employment
place of petitioner at Mohda project itself was closed and because
of this, the petitioner could not be reinstated. Apart from this, the
reference was made after seven years of the closure of Mohda
project on 31.1.1997. In these peculiar circumstances, the Labour
Court found that in place of reinstatement, it would be appropriate
if the compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to him and with the
aforesaid direction, the reference was disposed of finally.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that except reinstatement no option was available to the Labour
Court in the matter and in this regard, he has placed reliance to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishan Singh
(supra), but the fact remains that Mohda project itself was closed
on 31.1.1997 nearabout 7 years before the date when the
reference was made to the Labour Court. The labour Court
W.P.No.3984/2010(S)
Shiv Shankar Bele Van Mandal Adhikari and others.
(3)
decided the matter on 3.12.2009 nearabout after about 12 years
from the date when the project itself was closed. The Apex Court
in Krishan Singh was considering facts of that case in which the
Labour Court directed reinstatement of the appellant with 50%
back wages, but the High Court in the writ jurisdiction set aside
the order passed by the Labour Court and directed that in lieu of
reinstatement, compensation be paid to the petitioner of that case.
In those circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the order
passed by the High Court,
But the position in this case is entirely different. The
petitioner was retrenched on 1.2.1997 and Mohda project where
the petitioner was lastly working itself was closed on 31.1.1997.
The reference was made on 24.8.2007 to the Labour Court near
about ten years after the retrenchment of the petitioner and the
case was decided on 3.12.2009 nearabout 12 years after the date
of retrenchment. In these circumstances if the Labour Court
directed payment of compensation to the petitioner in lieu of
reinstatement, no fault is found in the order. The last place of the
employment of the petitioner was Mohda Project which itself was
closed on 31.1.1997. So it was futile to reinstate the petitioner in
the same project. In these circumstances, the discretion
exercised by the Labour Court cannot be said to be arbitrarily
requiring interference of this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
W.P.No.3984/2010(S)
Shiv Shankar Bele Van Mandal Adhikari and others.
(4)
In the result, this petition is found without merit and is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (G.S.Solanki)
Judge Judge
JLL
