KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, PANDRI KAPA, RAIPUR Vs. RAVI SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Nakedar on daily wages basis on 13.8.1984. The respondent continued to work on the basis of Nakedar without any break until 13.1.1989. Service of the respondent was removed without any notice or without payment of retrenchment allowance on 2.2.89. Learned counsel raised the dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "I.D. Act 1947"). The Deputy Labour Commissioner by his letter dated 27.1.90 referred the matter to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur under the I.D. Act 1947 on the following issue : - Whether removal of the respondent from service was valid and proper? If no what relief he was entitled to and in this respect what direction can be issued to the employer?

(2.) THE Labour Court, after having considered case of both the parties, came to the conclusion that removal of the respondent was invalid as the same has been done as per Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The respondent was neither given a notice nor paid retrenchment allowance as contemplated under Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly the Labour Court, by his award dated 25.2.2003 quashed the removal order of the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages. Being aggrieved, the employer/petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the appointment of the respondent was de -horse Section 30 of the C.G. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972, which contemplates prior sanction of the Director before creation of any post.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the committee has taken decision to remove the respondent from his service along with 90 other persons on the basis of circular dated 8.1.89 issued by the State Government. Shri N.K. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the proviso to Section 30 of the C.G. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, contemplates prior sanction of the Director, for creation of the post not for appointment on the post. The post of Nakedar was already created, the question is of appointment of the respondent on the post of Nakedar, therefore, proviso to Section 30 of the C.G. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 will not be applicable to the present case, where the dispute is not of creation of the post, but that of the appointment of the respondent on the post of Nakedar already created earlier. Learned counsel further submits that the circular dated 8.1.89 issued by the State Government cannot be made applicable without examining each and every individual case, after giving proper opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that almost all the persons removed along with the respondent have been reinstated/ reabsorbed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and documents appended to the petition as well as to the return.