Dismissed

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

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2013WP/3618/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation challenging a reinstatement order. The Court held that the Labour Court and Industrial Court correctly found the employee worked over 240 days, and the award was based on evidence with no perversity.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no interference with the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.

The C.G. Infrastructure Development… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

rl.

AMENDED PETITION

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

¶5

W.P.No.3618/2000

¶6

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section),

¶7

Divisional Office, Amanaka, Raipur (C.G.) through its Divisional Manaaer.............................Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

¶10

Panchuram Sahu and.ors........................Respondents.

¶11

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 226/226 OF THE

¶12

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶13

l.PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

¶14

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure

¶15

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

¶16

through its Divisional Manager

¶17

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

¶18

I- Shri Panchuram Sahu, S/o Bisoharam Sahu, r/o Ward No.18, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Presently working as "Sipahi", office of Khanij Adhikah,

¶19

Collectorate, Korba, P.S. Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.)" (C.G.)".

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Through its Managing Director"

¶24

'KT^

¶25

¶26

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶27

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶28

W.P. No. 3618/2000

¶29

PETITIONER

¶30

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure

¶31

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

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

RESPONDENTS

¶34

Panchuram Sahu and others

¶35

Shri Ratan Pusty counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Dixit counsel forthe respondent No.1

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(03.09.2013)

¶38

Facts essential for the disposal ofthis petition, in short, are that the respondenVemployee filed an app'ication 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 Transport 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 of Section 25-F of 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 fhe employee before the Industrial Court. However, vide order dated 8.12.1997 the Industrial Court affirmed the order passed by the Labour Court dated 18.10.1996. Industrial Court has categorically held that the employee has

¶39

^.y' :^T~ ^" t; j ^'A

¶40

¶41

¶42

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 Industrial Court. During the pendency ofthis 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.

¶43

Counsel 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 employee.

¶44

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^{behalfof theemployeethat} after recording the evidence, a finding has been given that the employee has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and therefore without giving retrenchment compensation, his services could not have been terminated. The said finding,

:^s 'v.

^/^^'

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 of writ 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 claimed 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.

¶50

il^?5s^^^

¶51

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.

¶52

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 with it.^{Mostimportantly,hehas} been granted regular pay scale also. Thus,^{consideringallthese} aspects of the case there appears to be no reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the Labour Court as welt as the Industrial Court.

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judgs

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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