Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. ... vs Anirudh Thakre on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
1 WA-2901-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2901 of 2024
M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
ANIRUDH THAKRE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2900 of 2024
M./P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGDISH JANARDAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2902 of 2024
M./P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGDISH JANARDAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Signing time: 02-04-2025
17:43:02
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
2 WA-2901-2024
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2903 of 2024
M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
ANIRUDH THAKRE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The writ appeals have been filed on the ground that in earlier round of
litigation vide order dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure-P/4 with writ petition), it
has been confirmed that there are no post available for respondents, hence,
for this reason, interference is warranted.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the writ Court
has granted lump-sum compensation to respondents on a higher side, factors
such as length of service of respondents was not at all considered by the Writ
Court. Respondents worked between 1999 to April 2001 which is little over
one year for such length of service, Rs. 3,00,000/- compensation and
Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to each respondents is on a higher side. Thus,
the present appeals deserve to be allowed.
3. It is further argued by learned counsel for appellants that writ Court
also failed to appreciate that appellants duly complied with the provisions of
section-17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, hence, grant of such higher
compensation was not warranted and payment made by appellants during
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
3 WA-2901-2024
pendency of the writ petition before the writ Court ought to have been
considered while passing the impugned order but the same was not taken into
account.
4. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for appellants has
relied upon the judgments which are as under:
i. Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another,
2008 (1) SCC 575,
ii. In charge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty, 2010 (9) SCC
iii. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and
another Vs. Gitam Singh, 2013 (5) SCC 136
iv Sadarsinh Sabursinh Bariya Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
Letters Patent Appeal No.61 of 2022 decided on 14.03.2024 by High Court
of Gujarat.
v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Devendra Kumar Shukla,
Writ Petition No.8727/2015 decided on 27.02.2024 by High Court of
Madhya Pradesh.
vi. Principal Vs. Brijesh Barman Misc. Petition No.1262/2021 decided
on 20.09.2024 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
5. The case of the respondents before the writ Court was that no
illegality has been committed. Evidence of Workmen was discussed in
detail. Moreover, evidence which has been adduced by the Management was
also taken into consideration. After considering the evidence of
Management, it was held that there was non-compliance of Section 25(N).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
4 WA-2901-2024
Retrenchment was done without seeking permission of Senior Officer.
Further, it was held that order of retrenchment of Workmen of the year 2001
was set aside by Labour Court vide order dated 24.09.2005. Said order was
challenged before Industrial Tribunal and appeal before the Tribunal was also
dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2007. Said order was challenged in writ
petition before the writ Court and the same was also dismissed on
24.01.2013. Thereafter, Workmen were given joining on 29.06.2013 after
long litigation and again to defeat order of Court, they were retrenched on
01.07.2013 only after 2 days.
6. Learned writ Court has noted that no notice under Section 25(F)
was issued to respondents. There was non-compliance of provision of
Section 25(F). It has been stated by appellants that Section 25(N) will not be
attracted as there is no retrenchment, therefore, there was no need to comply
with Section 25(F) of Industrial Dispute Act.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that retrenchment is defined in
Section 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, which is quoted as under:-
"(oo) ["retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of
the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise
than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but
does not include- [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953, Section 2 (w.e.f
24.10.1953). ]"
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in
that behalf; or]
(bb) [termination of the service of the workman as a result of the
non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer
and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
[ Inserted by Act 49 of 1984, Section 2 (w.e.f 18.8.1984).]
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
5 WA-2901-2024
(c) [termination of the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill-health; ] [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953.Section 2
(w.e.f. 24.10.1953)]."
8. Learned writ Court observed that exception given in Section 2(00)
does not cover the ground which is taken by learned counsel for writ
petitioners. Termination of service of an employee due to voluntary
retirement of Workmen, on attaining age of superannuation termination as a
result of non-renewal of contract on its expiry or termination of service of
Workmen on ground of continue ill health will not fall within the
retrenchment.
9. The writ petitioners herein were unable to bring out the case of
any exception laid down in Section 2(oo) and in view of the orders passed by
the Labour Court and writ Court, we find no illegality and perversity. The
workmen have been litigating continuously from 2001 till date.
10. In case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Apex Court directed that in place of
reinstatement, which was ordered after long period of time, workman be
awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with the interest.
11. In view of the above, we find no illegality or perversity in the
order passed by the learned writ Court. Finding no merit in the present
appeals, accordingly the same are dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Biswal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15620
6 WA-2901-2024
