Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nagar Palika Parishad Deori vs Prakash Dubey on 1 April, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

1 WP-5631-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5623 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
PRKASH PRAJAPATI
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir
Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5624 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
SEHWAZ KHAN
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 5627 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PRISHAD DEORI
Versus
IMRAN KHAN
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:18:59 PM
2 WP-5631-2017
WRIT PETITION No. 5629 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
KUSHAL HAZARI
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajmani Singroul, learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 5630 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
GAURAV BOHAR
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 5631 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
PRAKASH DUBEY
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 5632 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
DEVENDRA JHIRA
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:18:59 PM
3 WP-5631-2017
WRIT PETITION No. 5633 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
DEEPAK PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 6207 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
ADITYA BHATELE
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 6208 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
DHIRENDRA KUMAR KHARE
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

WRIT PETITION No. 6210 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DEORI
Versus
LAKHAN DUBEY
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal,
learned counsel for the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:18:59 PM
4 WP-5631-2017
ORDER

All these petitions are being decided by this common order as similar facts and law are involved in all these cases, however, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P. No.5623/2017.

2. The petitioner is assailing the award dated 31/01/2017 passed in Case No.C.O.C.A.100/15/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in Case No.C.O.C.A.100/15/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.101/15/ ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.78/15/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.37/16/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.28/16/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.97/15/ID Act Ref, award dated 31/01/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.102/15/ID Act Ref, award dated 22/02/2017, passed in C.O.C.A.33/16/ID Act Ref, award dated 22/02/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.31/16/ID Act Ref, award dated 22/02/2017 passed in C.O.C.A.32/16/ID Act Ref by the learned Labour Court under Industrial Disputes Act, Sagar whereby the claimants have challenged their retrenchment on 01/08/2015 without assigning any reason and being in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 to submit that in such cases payment of one time compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be the

5 WP-5631-2017 norm, therefore, impugned award directing reinstatement with back wages is upheld.

4. Shri Sanajy K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Mihir Agrawal, submits that he has instructions to submit that not only reinstatement has been granted but even back wages have been paid in terms of the resolution of the President-in-council, therefore, no further indulgence is required.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that facts of the case of Gitam Singh (supra) are that he had only worked for about eight months from 01/03/1991 to 31/10/1991 and he was not in service for more than last twenty years and that being the distinguishing fact which distinguishes the facts of the present case wherein respondents-workmen after being appointed on 08/05/2013 had continuously worked till 01/08/2015 and as submitted by Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel, occupation of a Hand-Pump mechanic being a continuous engagement and not a seasonal engagement as submitted by Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, their retrenchment being illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have been rightly set aside.

6. This Court was inclined to show some indulgence in the matter of grant of back wages but since it is submitted by Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel, that payment has been already made and arrears of back wages have been paid, then showing indulgence, at this stage, in the matter of lowly paid employees will cause prejudice to such employees if any recovery is ordered

6 WP-5631-2017 at this stage, that will be against the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer and others), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , therefore, restraining from passing any orders on the aspect of back wages under the typical facts and circumstances of the case i.e. back wages have already been paid on account of the resolution of the President-in-council, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, all the writ petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that aspect of back wages shall not be treated as a precedent and no reduction is being ordered on account of the typical facts that payment has already been made.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE