High Court under Article 226 quashed the Labour Court order directing deputation to a higher post for an ex-MPSRTC employee, rejecting equal treatment based on lack of record and potential chaotic precedents.
Impugned orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court allowing claim for higher deputation post were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
’ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W P (27)2 NO 2 010
PETITIONER : Chhattlsgarh Infrastructure (Non—Agglicant Development Corporation, No.1) (Transport Section), Through its Managing Director, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.-).,
Versus
RESPONDENTS
:1, Niman Khalkho, S/o Shri Prem Prakash Khaikho, aged about 41 years, Occupation Service, r/o Rambhatha, Nayapara,
K
.‘ra’R9 2.
3.
‘
:w‘° Vli-
Raigarh, Tahsii and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.).
The Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh Bench at Biia‘spur,
through. its Registrar. 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour ‘ Court, Raigarh (C G ) :w‘° Vlistate W “ 7w ( C 6i) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CON§TITliTmN m:
INDIA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON‘BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J.
W.P.§227) No. 918 of 2010
PETITIONER Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section)
Versus RESPONDENTS Niman Khalkho and others.
i\
Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State.
t ORAL ORDER (02(97/2014)
R
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order passed by the Labour Court on 12/09/2008 (Annexure P/10) and affirmed by the Industrial Court by its order dated 12/1 1/2009 (Annexure P/1 1) holding that the respondent-employee is entitled to be posted as Assistant Grade-ill on deputation to the State Govt. Consequently petitioner has been directed by the Labour Court to issue necessary orders in favour of the petitioner. 2. Upon formation of the State of Chhattisgarh by virtue of the enactment of Madhya Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2000 w.e.f 01/11/2000 the State of Chhattisgarh took a.policy decision not to constitute a State Road Transport Corporation under the State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Accordingly, all the establishments in the State of Chhattisgarh concerning the erstwhileMadhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, - ‘MPSRTC’) were placed under the control of petitioner. The employee of the erstwhile MPSRTC were rehabilitated by sending them on deputation to different departments of the State Govt. ln furtherance of the said decision the General Administration Department of the State Govt. issued a communication on 06/02/2003 directing all the departments of the State Govt. to pass
v_ «a(‘r .—
{"x
appropriate orders as and when the petitioner issues order sending the employees of erstwhile MPSRTC on deputation to a particular department. \3, By order dated 16/07/2004 the respondent employee along with four other Class lV employees who were working as Helper in the Raigarh Depot of ' erstwhile MPSRTC were posted on deputation as Peon in the District ‘ Collectorate, Raigarh. 4. Respondent employee moved an application under Section 31 (3) of Chhattisgvarh lndUstrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Raigarh challenging his deputation vide order dated 16/07/2004 with further prayer to direct the non-applicants/petitioner to‘send him on deputation commensurate to his previous post and like some other similarly situated persons who have been posted on deputation as Assistant Grade-Ill or on any technical post in any other department of the State Govt. Accordihg to the employee/respondent No.1, the petitionerwas entitled to be treated equally and similarly as A.K. Pandey and Firoz Ali Ansari who were also working on Class IV post as Store Keeper and Helper, respectively, in the erstwhile MPSRTC yet they have been posted as Assistant Grade-Ill in Treasury office, Dharamjaigarh and district office, Korba, respectively.
“i
'Petitioner'resisted 5. the claim by submitting that the respondent employee was working on Class~lV post as Helper, therefore, he cannot claim for sending him on deputation to a higher post. It was also put forth that no right has accrued in favour of petitioner to claim deputation on a particular post and the claim before the Labour Court isiinot maintainable because Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short, ‘CIDC’) is only a nodal agency and not an industry itself, in so far as petitioner’s‘services are concerned.
- The Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have allowed the prayermade by the‘employee on the ground that since two other persons
working as Store Keeper and Store Helper were also Class—IV employee like the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to be treated in a similar manner. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusedtherecord. 8. Parties have not produced before the Court below the norms or guidelines governing the issue concerning deputation of the employees of erstwhile MPSRTC to the different departments of the State Govt. Likewise parties have not placed before the Court below the orders whereby A.K. Pandey and Firoz Ali Ansari were sent on deputation as Assistant Grade—Ill. v The Court below have passed the impugned order only on the basis of admission made by the petitioner’s witnesses that A.K. Pandey and Firoz Ali Ansari have been sent on deputation as Assistant Grade-Ill. Although, deputation of the kind which became necessary on account of the closure of the business of MPSRTC in the State of Chhattisgarh is not a deputation in the ordinary sense of term but yet it is to be kept in mind that since the arrangement was termed as deputation, the legal interpretation of the term has to be understood in the same manner as is ordinarily meant, therefore, the concern employee had no right to be sent on deputation on a particular post. As long as his service conditions are not altered to a disadvantageous position than what he was enjoying immediately prior to his deputation vide Annexure P/6, the petitioner possiblyhadno grievance in the matter, Merely because oral evidence has been led that two other Class-lV employees of erstwhile MPSRTC were sent on deputation with the State Govt. as Assistant Grade-Ill, the petitioner cannot claim similar benefit by applying the principle of Article 1.4 as it is well settled that a person cannot claim to receive an illegal benefit grantedtoothersimilarly personsaslawdoesnotreCognisenegativeequality. [seeSupremeCourt Union oflndia Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59].
- Even otherwise, parties have not placed on record the orders whereunder A.K. Pandey and Firoz Ali Ansari were sent on deputation as Assistant Grade—HI, therefore, the Labour Court was not aware as to what were the terms of the deputation of those two persons; whether the deputation is stiii continuing on the same post or it has ceased to operate; whether subsequently they Were absorbed as Assistant Grade-ill or they were absorbed in a Class-iv post in the State Govt. Unless the Court had an occasion to see the terms of deputation, the principle of equality could not have been applied in‘the given set of facts only on the baSIs of oral eVIdence 10. Moreover upon closure of the affairs/busmess of MPSRTC in the State of Chhattlsgarh, hundreds of Helpers working in different depots were sent on deputation in Iike manner.
If the present employee‘is also held entitled to be posted on a Class-l” post under the State Govt, only on the basis that two employees have been posted on deputation as Assistant Grade-ill, hundred others would raise similar claim which may ultimately create a chaotic situation unnecessarily burdening the exchequer.
Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed.
\d/
Sd//— Prashant Kumar Mlshra Judge ,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court erred in directing deputation to a higher post based on alleged practice without statutory norms.
Whether principle of equality under Article 14 permits claim of illegal benefit granted to others under similar circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. M.K. SarkarApplied¶9
Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure (Non—Agglicant Development Corporation, No.1)
Niman Khalkho
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
