Dismissed

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section v. Bholarao and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2013WP/3609/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reinstatement order of a railway employee. The court found no perversity in the lower tribunals holding that the employee worked over 240 days, making termination without compensation illegal, and noted the employee had been granted regular pay scale.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as it had no substance.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

AMENDED PETITION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, JABALPUR fM.P.)

¶6

W.P.No.3609/2000

¶7

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section), Divjsional Office, Amanaka, Raipur (C.G.) through its Divisional Manager.............................Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

¶10

Shri Bholarao and ors.............................................Respondents.

¶11

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226/226 OFTHE

¶12

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶13

l.PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

¶14

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Deveiopment Corporation (Transport Section), Divisionai Office, Amanaka, Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

through its Divisional Manager

¶16

PARTICULARS OFTHE RESPONDENTS:-

¶17

1- Bhoiarao, S/o Ramarao, aged 27 years, r/o c/o Shri Basant Kumar Das Namdeo Ward No.18, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (M.P.) Presently working as "AushadhaSay Sevak", office of Jan Swasthya Ayurved Adhlkan, Baikunthpur, Koria, P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.)

¶18

2- The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Durg (M.P.)

¶19

3- The Mlember Judge, Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, RAIPUR(M.P.)

¶20

4- M.P.Road Transport Corporation, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal,

¶21

Through its Managing Director"

r^"

-^^.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶26

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶27

W^P. No. 3609/2000

¶28

PETITIONER

¶29

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure

¶30

Development Corporation (Transport Section), Divisional Office, Amanaka Raipur, CG.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

Bholarao and others

Shri Ratan Pusty counsel forthe petitioner. Smt. Renu Kochar counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(03.09.2013)

¶37

Facts essential for the disposal of this petition, in short, are that the respondent/employee filed an application before the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon under Section 31 (3) read with 61 and 62 of the Industrial Relation Act, 1960 challenging his termination order passed by the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State "MPSRTC"). Road Transpori: Corporation (for short Said application was partly allowed vide order dated 18.10.1996 and it has been held by the Labour Court that the employee has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding years and therefore without following the mandatory provisions^{ofSection25-Fof the} Industrial Dispute Act, his services could not have been terminated. The Labour Court has accordingly directed for reinstatement of the employee but has refused to grant back wages. The order of the Labour Court was assailed by the MPSRTC and also by^{theemployeebeforetheIndustrialCourt.} However, vide order dated 6.1.1998 the Industrial Court affirmed the order by the Labour Court dated 18.10.1996. passed Industrial Court has categorically held that the employee has

¶38

^^^*-^,,
^•,^^ '.^ '%
/;^<br>•^'^^ ^
I. ^ysj i
\ ^.^//
'•^sy

¶39

•2-

¶40

worked for more than 240 days and his services were terminated without following due procedure of law which is bad in the eye of law. The prayer of the employee for back wages has been denied by the Industrial Court also. MPSRTC filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh assailing the order of the Labour Court as well as the Industriat Court. During the pendency of this petition, State of Chhattisgarh came to be created and therefore the petition of MPSRTC stood transferred before this Court. Subsequently, vide notification dated 13.12.2002 Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation was constituted to take over the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile MPSRTC and at a later stage on 27.12.2002 MPSRTC was abolished so far as it relates to State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly after filing amendment application, present petition is being prosecuted by Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation.

¶41

Counset for the petitioner submits that both, the Labour Court as also the Industrial Court have erred in law in holding that the employee is entitled for reinstatement. He submits that the buses of MPSRTC were temporarily engaged in transportation of certain forest produce and for limited number of days services of employee were taken and for that he was paid remuneration. According to the petitioner's counsel, such engagement of the employee was purely temporary and seasonal and since his termination was not as a measure of retrenchment, no retrenchment notice was required to be served on the emptoyee.

¶42

On the other hand, supporting the award of the Labour Court and the order of the Industrial Court so far as they relate to reinstatement, it has been argued on behalf of the employee that after recording the evidence, a finding has been given that the employee has worked for more than 240 daysin a calendar year and therefore without giving retrenchment^{compensation,} his services could not have been terminated. The said finding,

¶43

anaiUuigaaiBUuBiaiiaaBiiiaaa

¶44

^^••••^t::>^ '^ -^ •? \ -7 <( r•v^^ r:' ^'

¶45

¶46

according to the counsel for the respondent/employee is well reasoned and based on the evidence adduced by the witnesses which cannot be interfered with. It has been argued that during the pendency ofwrit petition since 1999 the employee has been given^regular pay^{scaleofhelper/carpenter/cleaneretc.andas} for last 15 years he is getting the same, his services cannot be terminated at this stage. He argued that both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have not granted back wages to the employee nor the same was ever ctaimed by him, therefore, a sympathetic view may be taken looking to the fact that equity lies in his favour. He submits that in the writ petition, no perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner in the award of the Labour Court which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶47

At this stage, it has been argued by the petitioner that grant of regular pay scale to any employee does not amount to regularization and a separate order is required to be passed for the said purpose after considering many aspects of the case including entitlement of the employee for regularization, vacant post, relevant rules, performance and eligibility.

¶48

After going through the documents filed by the parties, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned award and it has been passed on the basis of proper evidence after applying the legal position correctly. The employee has initially worked for four years with the petitioner and thereafter for last 14-15 years he is working^{withit.Mostimpori:antly,hehas} been granted regular pay scale atso. Thus, considering all these aspects of the case there appears to be no reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court.

¶49

In aforesaid view of the matter, the petition has no substance and the same is accordingly dismissed^- -

¶50

—^rket

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section v. Bholarao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section v. Bholarao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Rupesh Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.Kavita Choubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section Vs Pradeep Kumar Tiwari and Ors.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation Transport Section Vs Panchuram Sahu and Ors.