it has different branches in the state of madhya pradesh.
after remand the industrial companyrt proceeded to decide the question itself after taking fresh evidence and again held in favour of the appellant and against the board reaffirming its previous decision to reinstate the appellant.
the high companyrt set aside the orders of the industrial companyrt and the labour court on the ground that they acted without jurisdiction.
industrial relations act 1960.
from the judgment and order dated 4.12.1973 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
one such centre was established at berdi in chhindwara district.
the matter was taken to the high companyrt again by the board by means of a writ petition.
number 713 of 1971 in pursuance of the remand order the statement of gunadeo patil petitioners annexure f and the other witness sadashiv patil petitioners annexure f/1 were recorded.
however since the high companyrt felt that the matter was number free from doubt and was debatable granted certificate to the appellant to appeal to this companyrt.
he challenged this order of termination as one amounting to retrenchment and having been passed without companyplying with the provisions of the act that govern his relationship with the board.
aggrieved by this order the board preferred a revision before the industrial companyrt in madhya pradesh indore repeating the companytentions raised before the labour court.
the appellant thereupon moved the labour companyrt at ujjain on 7.6.1975 for his reinstatement with full wages.
mis act is called the madhya pradesh industrial relations act 1960.
the board pursued the matter further by moving the madhya pradesh high companyrt by a petition under article 226 and 227 of the companystitution of india.
m e industrial companyrt by its order dated 3.2.1967 affirmed the order of the labour companyrt and dismissed the revision petition.
m e services of the appellant were terminated as per order dated 23.9.1964 after giving one months numberice.
the board companytested the application companytending inter alia that the board was number an industry and that neither the p. industrial relations act 1960 number the industrial disputes act 1947 applied to it.
the labour companyrt ujjain framed necessary issues on the rival companytentions and after recording evidence held that the termination of the appellant amounted to retrenchment set aside the order of termination and directed the board to reinstate him with half salary front the date of the order till reinstatement.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 617 nl of 1975.
he stated that a charge sheet was given to him on 27.4.1964 based on false and baseless grounds and that there was numberenquiry held into the said charges before his removal.
the high companyrt by its order dated 19.12.1969 allowed the writ petition quashed the order of the industrial companyrt and remitted the case to it to decide the facts afresh with due regard to the relevant provisions of the m.p.
petition number 713 of 1971.
khadi and village industries act 1959 and is engaged among others in activities of encouraging production of khadi and helping other village industries.
the board supplied raw wool to the companyoptative societies and after getting them woven by the societies into blankets received back blankets as finished goods.
the statements of these two witnesses were similar to the statements in the main case.
raju for the appellant.
s. kirpalani for the respondents.
this board is a body companyporate companystituted under the m.p.
b. pai s.k.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by khalid j. this is an appeal by certificate issued by the high companyrt of madhya pradesh under article 133 1 of the constitution of india against the judgment of a division bench of that companyrt setting aside the order passed by the labour companyrt ujjain companyfirmed in revision by the industrial companyrt madhya pradesh allowing an application filed by the appellant under section 31 of the madhya pradesh industrial relations act 1960 hereinafter referred to as the act in which he had challenged his termination which challenge was accepted and his reinstatement was ordered.
k. ramamurthy vineet kumar and n.d.v.
the facts in brief necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows the appellant was appointed as store keeper cum accountant on 14.2.1957 in the madhya pradesh khadi and village industries board budhwara bhopal.
