w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Product Ltd., Sagar v/s Appellate Authority

    W.P. 1230 Of 1995

    Decided On, 01 February 2002

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh


    For the Appearing Parties: Ankit Dasai, Advocate.

Judgment Text

(1.) The petitioner assailed the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966.

(2.) The appeal filed under Section 31(2) of the Act was allowed by the appellate authority. Removal of respondent 2 was held to be illegal not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reinstatement was directed with back wages.

(3.) Respondent 2 Ibrahim in the appeal filed before the appellate authority alleged that he was working with Khemchand Motilal Jain Tobacco Products Ltd., Sagar. He was removed on July 17, 1993. He was pressurised to submit the resignation which he did not submit. Similarly other employees were removed. Hence oral march order was given to the respondent 2. Respondent 2 submitted a representation before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner.

(4.) The petitioner in the reply contended that workman did not turn up on duty of his own. The workman is a piece rated labour and used to be paid for the work done by him. Provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act is not attracted as the workman has abandoned the services on his own.

(5.) Before the appellate authority the parties adduced evidence and examined the witnesses. By order dated January 11, 1995 the appellate authority came to to theconclusion that services were terminated on july 17, 1993 in illegal mariner, no notice was given to the workman, One month's notice was required. It is not the case setup by the employer that workman was dismissed on the ground of misconduct

(6.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence has not been appreciated properly by the appellate authority. The workman had left the services on his own. He further submits that after reinstatement in pursuant to the impugned order the workman was offered to go to Dhulian in the State of West Bengal where he did not join. Thus it should mean that workman is not interested to render the services.

(7.) Shri S.D. Khan counsel for respondent 2 submits that before removal the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act and Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. Thus the direction of reinstatement along with back wages is just and proper. Evidence has been properly appreciated. There is no perversity in the order passed by the appellate authority. He further submits that the offer to the petitioner to go to West Bengal amounted to victimization of the poor workman. He does not understand the language of West Bengal. He was asked to report mere in an unfair manner. The offer was no offer in the eye of law and was made to forego compliance of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act.

(8.) The first question is whether the order passed by the appellate authority is legal, just and proper. The evidence has been appreciated by the appellate authority. Even the witness of the employer stated that workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation and gratuity. No notice was given to workman. One month's notice was required to be given under Section 31 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers Act. Service of such notice is mandatory before removal or the services of the workman could not be dispensed with by an oral order.

(9.) The stand taken by the employer that the workman did not come to service on his own, has rightly been rejected by appellate authority. Immediately after 3 days of his termination the workman approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner and also approached the appellate authority. He was working for the last about 19 years and could not have been dealt with in an arbitrary manner. He was having the protection of Section 31 and also the protection of I.D. Act. The removal has been rightly set aside. The direction of reinstatement with back wages calls for no interference.

(10.) Next submission is that the workman was required to render the services in West Bengal. Such an offer cannot be said to be an offer at all as the workman is poor and is resident of Sagar. I find force in the submission.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

It was not possible for the workman to go to West Bengal. Such an offer could not be said to be fair offer. It is not the case that work was not available in Sagar. (11.) Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that petitioner may be given liberty to take action in accordance with law. Nothing in the order prevents lawful action taken by the petitioner. (12.) Writ petition is without merit and is dismissed. Cost on parties.