1
W.P.No.14153/09
State of M.P. & another Nagendra Kumr Mishra
20.5.2010
Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.Advocate General for petitioners.
Shri N.K.Mishra, Counsel for respondent.
This petition is directed against the order Anneure P/1 dated
4.5.2002 and order Annexure P/2 dated 8.3.2006 passed by the
Labour Court, Rewa. Vide order Annexure P/1, the Labour Court,
Rewa passed an award against the petitioners by allowing a reference
made by the Additional Labour Commissioner, M.P. Indore dated
1.3.1999 . The following question was referred to the Labour Court for
adjudication:-
Whether the retrenchment of Shri Nagendra Kumar Mishra
S/o Bhuvneshwar Prasad Mishra from service was valid
and justified ? If not, then to what relief he is entitled and in
this regard what direction can be issued to the employer ?
Before the Labour Court, petitioners herein proceeded exparte,
the Labour Court recorded exparte evidence and after recording a
finding the Labour Court found that the retrenchment order was illegal
as section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with.
The Labour Court further found that the respondent was not in gainful
employment and after recording aforesaid findings directed
reinstatement of the respondent with 50% of the back wages.
After passing of the aforesaid order, petitioners herein moved
an application before the Labour Court under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for
setting aside exparte award, but this application was rejected vide
order dated 8.3.2006 in Case No.112/IDAct/04. The Labour Court
found that there was no sufficient cause to the petitioners herein for
setting aside exparte order and rejected the application.
Against aforesaid order, this petition has been filed on
21.12.2009, alongwith application I.A.No.13428/09 seeking
condonation of delay in filing this petition.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the Labour Court
erred in allowing the reference in favour of the employee. There was
2
W.P.No.14153/09
State of M.P. & another Nagendra Kumr Mishra
20.5.2010
no evidence in respect of his continuation of work for more than 240
days before his retrenchment. That petitioners showed sufficient
cause to the Labour Court for setting aside exparte order, but the
Labour Court rejected the aforesaid application vide order Annexure
P/2.
To appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we perused the
record, impugned orders Annexure P/1 and P/2. In Annexure P/1, the
Labour Court found that before retrenchment, respondent had worked
for more than 240 days and the provisions of section 25F of the Act
were not complied with. The Labour Court further found that
respondent successfully proved that he was not in gainful employment
after retrenchment from service and on these grounds directed
reinstatement of the respondent with 50% of the back wages. In the
aforesaid order, we do not find any error of jurisdiction warranting our
interference.
So far as order Annexure P/2 is concerned, petitioners had
shown a cause for setting aside the exparte award Annexure P/1 that
there was no service on the petitioners herein and on the basis of
report of peon, exparte proceedings took place against the petitioners.
But the Labour Court found that in fact petitioners were duly served.
Incharge Forest Range Officer, Shri Arun Deosare appeared before
the Labour Court on 13.9.2000. Thereafter again a notice was issued
to the petitioners which was delivered in their office on 28.2.2002 and
28.3.2002. Thereafter, matter proceeded against the petitioners and
exparte order was passed. The Labour Court found that inspite of
service of notice on the petitioners herein, they failed to appear and
the Labour Court found no sufficient reason for setting aside exparte
award. In this order, we do not find any error of jurisdiction. Though
the petitioners were served twice, but they remained absent inspite of
service of notice and knowledge of pendency of the case. Petitioners
ought to have remained vigilant in the Court matter and when earlier
3
W.P.No.14153/09
State of M.P. & another Nagendra Kumr Mishra
20.5.2010
notice was served on the petitioners, they ought to have approached
the Labour Court for defending their case. However, the Labour Court
issued another notice and petitioners were served on 28.2.2002 and
28.3.2002, but inspite of this, petitioners had not appeared.
In view of aforesaid, there is no error of jurisdiction in the order
Annexure P/2. This petition is found without merit and is dismissed
with no order as to cost.
C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (G.S.Solanki)
Judge Judge
C.