This writ dismissed as infructuous for two petitioners reinstated, while rejecting claims of illegal termination and reinstatement for others due to completed retrenchment compensation payment and lack of proof regarding 240-day service requirement under Industrial Disputes Act.
Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
L^< ^^l/o^
BS50RE HOH'BLE tffiDHYA ERADESH STATE ADMmiSTRATTVS TRIBUNAL .3SALPI5—(5;£;1w p ^^^3^y:^...JQ3'vs^ '^•iginal Application tSo._<^%0^^ 2000
Appllcants 1 . RAM KUWS. K&SHyAP s/o Sbree HS: Mlambar ifalba aged about 33 years r/o vlllageMiravahl Tah. & Dlstt. KAKKSl (H.P.) 2. MUK0HD RAM s/o Slyaram Gawade agec3 about 33years 1'ahsil Balod,Distt. DURG $K.P.) 3. DH.a.NSSH RAI4 s/o Klsaa Qond aged about 31 years, r/o village - Karijhar Tahsll - Gurur DURG (M.P.) . 4. SHYAM LAL /o iTaylal Dadsena aged about 33 years l^tlya v-illage - Balod, DJ.stt. BURG (M.P.) 5. SHyAM K3WS. {K&RAlA S/o U3ai 8am aged about 49 years r/o .vlllage - BorsJ. Fost - Budhell Tajisil Berla,Distt.Durg (M.P.) '• »<''. y^iwi r^ ^TZY^ contd,..2
li.i:..:ii w
2
BALRAM SAHU S/o Heeraman Sahu,s about 35 B/o ^illage- frUpenl S. Gurur Tahsll Balod, Dlstt. DUSG (M.P.) .
^fi'/^/y
^S-cS^^E^qS^S ;
DURS (B.P.)
versus
Non-applicants sl. STATS OF HSDHYA ERADSSH
BIIJ^
through v secretary Bbrest Oepairtmeat '-'ovt.of M.P. ttfentralaya
%llabh Bhawan
BHOPAL (B.P.)
DURG (M. P.5
m»'••
DETAXS OP THE APBLIG&TION
(C/s 19 o£ theAdmln istrat Ive Trlbunals Act 1985)
As gjyen lo the cau.se title.
Particulars of fche Nan-applJ.cants s
As given In the cause tltle.
%rticulars of _the_orders agalnst which appllcatlon is flle<3 ;-
Q.) °Tdar No/Exp.AQ/1573 off.tce of the
Divislonal -Ebrest °f£icer, Durg,
•Ebrest Divlslon,Durq St. 31/3/2000. Annex.A20 ?T^l@ r^'^ <S) %?A^ contci ..4
BE!!
''»»,'a'ii.a»>i;''-''ya""^,i ,\ ^'~?7<E^/ v
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2021 of 2005
Ram Kumar Kashyap & Others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh (State of Chhattisgarh) & Another
Postfor pronouncemsnt oforders on the 11th day ofJuly, 2016
Sd//-
prashantKumarMishra Judge
,.rf*'-y::.? ,.'»<» '»»SaS~& """^sS,^
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
WPS No. 2021 of 2005
Ram Kumar Kashyap & Others
-— Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh (State of Chhattisgarh) & Another
-—Respondent
For Petitioners
For Respondent/State
ShriV.G. Tamaskar,Advocate
ShriY.S. Thakur, Dy.Adv. General
Hon'ble Shri JusticePrashant Kumar hflishra
C A V Qrder
N /07/2016
This petition was originallyfiled before the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2000 as OA No.3808/2000 seeking quashment of the order of termination and direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in the services with full backwages with alternative prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay wages to the petitioners for a minimum period of 20 years.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would inform thatthe petitioners No.3 & 4, namely; Dhanesh Ram & Shyam Lal, respectively have been taken back in
'!P!^3;;!T
service during pendency of the petition, therefore, the writ petition in respect of these two petitioners has been rendered infructuous.
1 2014 LABI.C. 1093 2 2014 LABI.C. 1432 3 (2015) 8 SCC 265
fcA
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners have not submitted any proof of the fact that they had worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year immediately prior to their removal and moreover retrenchment compensation having been paid as is mentioned in the order of termination (Annexures - A/20 to A/30), there is no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the prayerfor reinstatement cannot be allowed.
It is not the case of the petitioners that the scrutiny was made in an illegal manner and the findings are perverse.
9i
lil
liK1
puenL|eg pesejd B>|ULUV Q'ON jsuoiijted 341 3^i\ ajOLu 8LUOS pue 36e }0 sjeeA 09 uei<} SJOLU SJE luey lueseg G'ON jsuoii^ed SLJ) pue ABpe^ LUEjnqfjig /'ON jeuo!)!}ed '(UBJB») jeiiinx ujeALis S'ON Jsuofiftad SL|} 'iuassjd ie pe^ ^o jsyeai e se :sjesA 03-6fr tnoqe psBe SJB sjauoi}!}sd aq) ^o }SOLU pue sjeeA 91, }SE| 34} JQJ Buipusd psuieLusj SE^ uo4i}3d SLJ} V>Ei 9L|} 6uU3pfSUOO 'J3A3MOL| 'SindSlp |BU}snpui SL|} ssiej o) sjauofffpd aif) p9}eBe|ej eAei^ p|nom ynoo SIL)) AiueuipJQ
•sindsip |eytsnpui SLI) pasiej OAB^ 0} sjauoijiisd SL|} jo^ SBM }| 'pnoQ SIL|} puiq )ou pjnoM jsyeuj jeijio SLUOS ui souspiAS Buipjooej jsye ynoQ jnoqen 3L|) Aq pspjooajBuipuy'lQi^BUJBS3L|}jo^ p3|}i}U3ejesjeuojtiisd aijt 'ajopjsL)} 'jnoAe^ JIBL^} ui psjsMsue useq SGLI LU3L|} Aq pesiej aindsip |eutsnpui aq} QJSL^M tJnoQ jnoqe-] 0} 9uo6 PGLJ SS)BplpUE3 jal(}0 eLUOS }BL|} p3}e}S 9AB4 SJSUOI)!}ad
'6
•8
•'l!lii
•os|e souepiAa |GJO p Guipesi sjinbsj p|noM os 6uiop ssneosq )JnoQ jnoqe") SL)) jo )Jnoo |eu} s^t s)(i| Ajinbus ue uo ^jeqLua )ou pjnom 9% 3|oi}JV -ispun Buinis )Jnoo SIL|} 'seoueiSLunojio L|ons u| '8861.-ZL~1-£ oi J'ou^ }U8ai}jed8p aL|) Ul BUDJJOM J134} ^O ^o.ojd Uje}uoo }ou op spjooaj lepiyo sq} ye^ p8)e}s A||Bouo6ate3 3AeL| stuapuodsej 3W '9961.-ZI.-1.£ °} -'o'-'d 6ui>|jOM 3J3M AaL)} }BL|) a)ej}SuoLU9p 0} psxsuue ussq OABLJ s8}eoy!p90 OLUOS LjBnoi<)|V
..^p.i.St.:ii''li'
\7\ ' petitioner No.8 Ram Prasad are presently aged about 57 years of age, it may not be appropriate at this stage to relegate them to approach the Labour Court. While concluding so, this Court is also impressed by the statement made in the termination order wherein the retrenchment compensation has been paid to each ofthe petitioner. Once retrenchment compensation is paid, even if the petitioners have worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year immediately prior to the removal, it may not be termed as illegal retrenchment.
A
sdJ':^t?Atewa Tt^anti*u^
Gowri
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of daily wagers appointed after 31-12-1988 pursuant to State Government instructions is illegal despite retrenchment compensation payment.
Whether the High Court's scrutiny of individual cases was legal and findings were non-pervasive.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.N.L. v. BhurumalReferred¶65
B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal1, 2014 LABI.C. 1093
U.P. Government Press and Others v. W.JotilalReferred¶65
U.P. Government Press and Others v. W.Jotilal, 2014 LABI.C. 1432
Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and OthersReferred¶65
Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 265 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar Kashyap & Others
State of Madhya Pradesh (State of Chhattisgarh) & Another
Gowri Shankar
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
