SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5555 of 1998. D/d. 27.2.2001.

Nagar Panchayat, M.P. - Appellant

Versus

Diwan Chand Taneja and another - Respondents

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10(1) - Labour Law - Termination - Respondent-Helper/Nakedar - His service were put to an end by an oral order on the ground that the post stood abolished - Dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year - High Court held that the respondent was entitled not only to retrenchment compensation but also shall get Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) or in the alternative he shall be employed in some other vacancy - High Court is just and proper - No interference.

[Paras 1 and 2]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - Respondent 1 Diwan Chand Taneja was employed as Helper/Nakedar by Municipal Council, Budni, District Sehore and his services were put to an end by an oral order on the ground that the Helper/Nakedar post stood abolished. Aggrieved by that action the respondent raised a dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, did not interfere with the action of the appellant having taken the view that the Helper/Nakedar post stood abolished. When the matter was carried by way of a writ petition, the High Court examined the matter and found that the Chief Municipal Officer who had been examined was unable to say whether the Nakedary post had been abolished or not. On the other hand it was made clear that the respondent was working as a Helper/Nakedar and his services were orally terminated. When the fact that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year could not be disputed and it was not clearly established that it was on account of closure of Nakedary system, the High Court took the view that the finding recorded by the Labour Court was perverse and, therefore, interfered with the order and held that the respondent was entitled not only to retrenchment compensation but also shall get Rs 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) or in the alternative he shall be employed in some other vacancy, within two months from the date of the order.

2. In the circumstances, we think the order made by the High Court is just and proper and we decline to interfere with the same.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

.