Water Resource Department vs Bharosi Lal Verma
2025 Latest Caselaw 100 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Water Resource Department vs Bharosi Lal Verma on 1 April, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7516




                                                            1                               WP-5556-2024
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                  ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 5556 of 2024
                                     WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
                                                     Versus
                                               BHAROSI LAL VERMA
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri B.M. Patel - Govt. Advocate and Shri Somya Pawaiya - Advocate
                         for the petitioners/State.
                                 Shri Ravi Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                                                                ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Industrial Court, Gwalior, whereby while dismissing the appeal the order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court, whereby while allowing the application under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960 preferred by the respondent, the petitioner/department was directed to pay a

sum of Rs.4,70,774/-, was affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State while assailing the aforesaid order submitted that the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court has erred in considering that the respondent is a daily wager and is only entitled for minimum pay scale as has been held by the Apex Court in he matter of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436; and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7516

2 WP-5556-2024 accordingly the respondent has already paid a sum of Rs.1,22,085/- in the year 2012 itself and now again direction to make payment of arrears of wages including the increments was bad in law.

3. It was also argued that since the very order passed by Labour Court was dehorse the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), the RRC dated 23.11.2022 directed to be issued against the petitioner was per se illegal and, therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside.

4. It was also argued that the respondent/employee was placed in the Regular Work Charge Establishment in the year 2012 and since then he is getting all benefits of regular establishment and prior to that he was holding only status of classified employee and was entitled only for the benefits of

minimum pay scale and, therefore, could not have been given any benefits other than which he was entitled, but the labour Court ignoring the aforesaid fact and legal position has allowed the application and had wrongly directed to the petitioners/department to pay the arrears of salary. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders i.e. Annexure P/2 dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Labour Court as well as Annexure P/1 dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Industrial Court be set aside.

5. Per contra, Shri Ravi Jain, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no illegality and perversity has been committed by the Labour Court in passing the impugned order as firstly till the date of regularization of the respondent i.e. February, 2012, the petitioner was entitled for the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7516

3 WP-5556-2024 arrears as per directions given by the Labour Court vide order dated 06.05.1998, which till date has not been challenged by the petitioners/State, thus, mere challenging the calculation as made under Section 108 of MPIR Act, the order dated 06.05.1998 cannot be undone.

6. While placing reliance in the matter of Om Prakash Sengar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.P. No.1629/2020 dated 05.04.2022 he had further argued that this Court in the aforesaid judgment in categorical terms has held that since the order passed by the Labour Court was of the date much before the date of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and had already attained finality and also the respondents had paid salary including increments for a particular period, the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) cannot be made the basis for recording a finding that the respondent is not entitled for the salary including increments from the date of order passed by Labour Court. It was further argued that it is settled principle of law that any subsequent decision on an identical or similar point by Coordinate or larger Bench or even by change of any law could not make earlier orders redundant. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that there is no sum and substance in the petition and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. After hearing, rival contentions and going through the record, this Court finds strength in the arguments as advanced by the counsel for the respondent.

8. It is also noteworthy that no challenge has been made by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7516

4 WP-5556-2024 petitioners/State to the calculation made by the Labour Court that the calculation has been erroneous except for the fact that it is not in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra). As this Court has already held that the judgement in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), which according to this Court is not applicable to the present case, as the order passed by Labour Court is dated 06.05.1998, much before the order of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra), thus, once the order of Labour Court had attained finality, by way of present petition it cannot be undone. Thus, there is no force and substance in the present petition.

9. It is settled principle of law that in event of any subsequent decision on identical issue decided by Coordinate or larger Bench or even change of law, the earlier orders, which had attained finality cannot be set aside and would not be a ground for recording a finding that the earlier order was bad in law. Herein case, the basic order passed by Labour Court is dated 06.05.1998. The said order was challenged up till this Court by the State but the said challenge was put down and, therefore, the order passed by Labour Court dated 06.05.1998 attained finality. Since the amount after permanent classification of the petitioner was not paid to the respondent, he had moved application under Section 108 of MPIR Act for its recovery and on earlier occasion a sum of Rs.1,22,085/- was directed to be paid to the respondent, which was paid, thereafter since further arrears remained due till February, 2012, till the month in which the respondent was regularized, another application under Section 108 of MPIR Act was filed, which has been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7516

5 WP-5556-2024 allowed by the impugned order.

10. This Court in wake of the fact that the basic order of Labour Court dated 06.05.1998 is still in existence and the impugned order herein is only with regard to recovery of arrears, the challenge to the said order by the State is of no consequence. Even otherwise, as has been held earlier that any decision of larger Bench or Coordinate Bench or even change of law could not made the earlier order redundant, the present petitioners/State is liable to pay the amount as has been directed by Labour Court.

11. Accordingly, the present petition hereby fails and is dismissed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

neetu