PETITIONE&s Uhe Executive EngiReer, Pbblie Works Oeptt.6 ( BSft), Division No.2, Ambilcapur v. BESPONDENTSs 1
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the orders dated 30-8-19996 and 5-4-1999 passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as aforestated, the respondent employee is not entitled to back wages. If the respondent employee…
Judgment
Budhram Yadav S/o Shri Jagdey Yadav. 3Q yis, stca:e Chouktdar,_Div. No.2;, P.ffsB.'t BSR) Permanent'B/o BN.-ktikala Mahua Tikra, Anbikapur, Ois-fct.garguja. The Presiding Officer, Labour Cour-t, Ambikapuro Tlis .S-tate Industrlal Court, Bench at Raipar, through tts Membez-. . IT PETITION ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION. -H!Oy8HA2 -u>i)'»;y*.( ii^.^<s!S"^ .,; <lt' ',;,;::(•;-- "^ ~.^: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITtON N0.2606 OF 2000 PETITIONEES The Executive Engineer & Others RESPONDENTS Budhram Yadav & Others Versus (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General for the State/petitioners. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER COPEN COURT1 (Passed on this 7th day of March, 2013) Heard tearned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the Labour Court without holding that the respondent employee had worked for 240 days has directed reinstatement with full back wages, which is contrary to the well settled principles of law as well as the provisions of the MP/CG Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short"the Act, 1960").
The facts, in short, are that the respondent employee was working on the post of Store Choukidhar on daily wages basis from 1-5-1991. Thereafter, services of the respondent employee was discontinued by order dated 8-11-1995. Being aggrieved, the respondent employee preferred an application under Section 31 (3) read with Section 61 of the Act, 1960. The Labour Court without recording the finding in respect of working for 240 days allowed the application of respondent employee and passed the order, as aforestated. Thus, this petition.
Section 110 of the Act, 1960 provjdes for applicability of Chapters V-A, V-B and V-C. Under Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1947"), the employee is entitled to the benefit of ^ EWtBB.'>'JMJ: *•-•'•*" ^i Section 25F, ibid, if he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. The Labour Court without recording the finding, as aforestated, directed reinstatement of the respondent employee with full back wages. Thereagainst, in appeal, the Industrial Court by order dated 5-4-1999 (Annexure - P/2) confirmed the finding and order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, hoftever, modified the award of back wages to the extent of 50%. The Courts below have not decided the dispute in accordance with law, as before granting reinstatement with full back wages or 50% back wages or holding that there was a breach of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947, the necessary requirement regarding working of 240 days in the preceding year is mandatory, which has not been done in the instant case.
Operative part
In view of the orders dated 30-8-19996 and 5-4-1999 passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as aforestated, the respondent employee is not entitled to back wages. If the respondent employee has not been reinstated and the payment has been made, as required under Section 65 (3) of the Act, 1960 the same shall not be recoverable from the respondent employee. If the respondent employee has already been reinstated in service, he shall not be now removed from service on account of the order passed by this Court. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order asto costs. -_A—- Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.