Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Kumar Verma vs M/S P.E.B. Steel Lyod Limited on 14 August, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362
1
M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

MISC. PETITION No. 2784 of 2023
KANHAIYA SHARMA
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS
WITH

MISC. PETITION No. 1602 of 2023
CHANDRABHAN CHILHATE
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 1603 of 2023
AWADH KISHORE YADAV
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND

MISC. PETITION No. 1604 of 2023
BASANT KUMAR RAI
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND

MISC. PETITION No. 1605 of 2023
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND

MISC. PETITION No. 1606 of 2023
BHEEM KUMAR RAI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 18-08-2025
12:05:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362
2
M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND

MISC. PETITION No. 2786 of 2023
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2788 of 2023
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2790 of 2023
TRILOKCHAND CHAKRE
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2793 of 2023
SOMANNA HIROL
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2798 of 2023
MUKESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2802 of 2023
PRAHLAD KUMAR PATEL
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2803 of 2023

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 18-08-2025
12:05:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362
3
M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others
MUKESH PRASAD
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2805 of 2023
PANKAJ KUMAR VERMA
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2806 of 2023
DEVENDRA PRASAD
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2808 of 2023
GOVIND GOUD
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2829 of 2023
CHHOTELAL GOUD
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED THROUGH FACTORY MANAGER
AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2831 of 2023
VIJAY JADHAV
Versus
M/S P.E.B STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2841 of 2023
SANDEEP B PATIL
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 18-08-2025
12:05:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362
4
M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others
MISC. PETITION No. 2842 of 2023
SHAILESH KUMAR RAI
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2844 of 2023
SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2845 of 2023
RAM KUMAR SHAH
Versus
M/S PEB STEEL LYOD LIMITED THROUGH FACTORY MANAGER
AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2846 of 2023
RAMCHANDRA SOLANKI
Versus
M/S P.E.B STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS

MISC. PETITION No. 2848 of 2023
RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND

MISC. PETITION No. 3474 of 2023
AJAY KUMAR KUSHWAH
Versus
M/S P.E.B. STEEL LYOD LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners /
workmen.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Rachana

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 18-08-2025
12:05:59
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362
5
M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others
Zamindar, learned counsel for the respondents / employer.
Heard on : 05th August, 2025
Delivered on : 14th August, 2025

ORDER

Per : Justice Vivek Rusia Since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical in nature, with the joint request of the parties, these petitions are analogously heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Miscellaneous Petition No.2784 of 2023 are narrated hereunder.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the award pronounced on 30.06.2022, whereby all the complaint cases have been dismissed.

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

02. The respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the activities of fabrication in its unit situated at Pithampur Industrial Unit, District - Dhar.

2.1. The petitioner was appointed on 01.10.2008 to the post of Fitter.

2.2. The Union of PEB Steel Lloyd Shramik Sangh had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Indore, in respect of several demands for its members working in the respondents' Unit at Pithampur. Vide order dated 03.12.2015, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Indore, for adjudication. 2.3. During the pendency of the said dispute raised by the Trade

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others Union before the Industrial Tribunal, the Management of the respondent company lodged an FIR against 19 workmen alleging that they had procured employment by producing a forged ITI certificate. All of them were arrested, and after two months, they were released on bail. The remaining workmen, i.e. petitioners, under the fear of arrest, submitted their resignations and the same were accepted by the Management. All the claims admissible were paid to them. 2.4. Later on, workmen approached Industrial Tribunal by way of application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r/w section 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relation Act, 1957 seeking reinstalment with back wages on the grounds that they were threatened by the Management that in do not resign from service the FIR would be registered and they would sent to jail as has been done in the case of 19 workmen, therefore, under the fear the resignation was submitted which is not voluntary hence they are liable to be taken back.

2.5. The respondents appeared and filed a reply by submitting that the petitioners procured the employment by producing a forged certificate; therefore, to save themselves from registration of a case of forgery and termination, they voluntarily resigned on 07.07.2016. The resignation was paid and accepted thereafter, and the entire amount of gratuity was also released with an experience certificate. Therefore, the provision of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be attracted in this case.

2.6. Learned Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 30.06.2022 has dismissed all the claims by holding that the petitioners' workmen had resigned, due to which, their services came to an end, for which

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others no permission was liable to be taken by the management from the Tribunal as required under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.

03. So far as the termination of those 19 workmen is concerned, the learned Industrial Tribunal had passed an award dated 29.06.2021 directing their reinstatement with full back wages. The Management challenged the said award by way of M.P. Nos 2421 of 2021 & other petitions before this Court. Vide order dated 27.02.2025, all the petitions have been dismissed, maintaining the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Management before the Apex Court. One SLP has been dismissed by the Apex Court, and others have been permitted to withdraw with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the order dated 27.02.2025 are reproduced below:-

''05.It is not in dispute that Case No.30 / ID / 16 is still pending, in which the demands raised by the Union are under consideration before the Industrial Court. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act put specific bar that during the pendency of the proceedings before a conciliation officer / Board / arbitrator / labour Court / Tribunal, no employer shall, alter, to the prejudice of workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement such proceedings; or for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punishment of dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

06. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not seek any permission from the Industrial Court and straightway passed the order of termination. The main allegation behind the termination is that the respondents procured employment by producing forced certificate of ITI. The respondents and other were put to trial vide Sessions Trial

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others No.18/2024 before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar.

07. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the copy of judgment dated 30.12.2022, whereby they all have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the basis allegation on which the respondents & others were terminated does not survive.

08. Apart from the aforesaid, in this case the petitioner adopted unfair labour practice against the respondents. In the year 2016, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the 15 workmen, in which they all were arrested. They remained in jail for two months and during this period, the order of termination was passed and sent to the home address. Hence, they were thrown out from the job in the year 2016. In the year 2021, the learned Tribunal passed an award in their favour by directing reinstatement with full back wages all consequential benefits. Now almost four years have been passed, neither they have been reinstated nor paid the last wages drawn in compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

09. These miscellaneous petitions are pending since 2001. In some the petitions only notices were issued and no interim relief has been granted in favour of the petitioner.The respondents are fighting for their reinstatement into the service before the Industrial Court by way of execution application. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to accept the joining of the respondents within ten days and shall pay them back wages and other benefits within 30 days.

10. With the aforesaid direction, all the Miscellaneous Petitions stand dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to respondent No.1.'' SUBMISSIONS

04. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, argued that the case of the present petitioners is altogether different as they voluntarily submitted their resignation and the same was accepted, hence, they have no claim in respect of reinstatement into the service like others. Learned Senior Counsel

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others argued that now the respondent company is running into a loss, although those 19 workmen were taken back into the service, but the company has no work to take from them. Therefore, these workmen are not liable to be taken back from service.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that the resignation was not submitted voluntarily. The workmen were threatened with registration of an FIR. The Management created circumstances under which the workmen came under pressure and submitted their resignations. The resignation was accepted on the same day, whereas 30 days is prescribed in the Standing Order for acceptance of resignation. The language of the letter of resignation of all the workmen is identical; therefore, it cannot be said that on the same ground, all of them submitted their resignations. Those employees who were terminated after the Departmental Enquiry and after registration of FIR have been reinstated. Therefore, these workmen are also liable to be reinstated.

APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION

06. The only contention of Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel is that these petitioners workmen submitted their resignation, and after resignation, their entire claims were settled and experience certificates were issued to them; therefore, now they cannot challenge the action of the Management to get the relief of reinstatement into the service. In the present case, admittedly, the charter of demand was submitted by the Union, which was pending before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as Reference No.39/ID/2015. During the pendency of the reference, the Management started harassing the office bearer and some of the workmen. Accordingly to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others respondents, those 19 workmen and these petitioners obtained a forged ITI certificate in order to procure the employment. The FIR was registered against the 19 employees on 25.06.2016; thereafter, they were arrested and sent to jail. They remained in jail for two months, and later on, they were released on bail. Finally, they were acquitted on 30.12.2022.

07. The date of resignation of the present petitioners is 07.07.2016. The language of all the resignation letters is the same;

therefore, it is not possible that all the petitioners had the same reason for submitting resignations from service. On 25.02.2016, those 19 workmen were sent to jail, and these petitioners submitted their resignations on 07.07.2016; therefore, the contention of the petitioners is correct that management created an atmosphere of arrest in the company and on such apprehension, resignations were obtained from them. Hence, it cannot be said that resignation was submitted voluntarily. All the resignations were accepted on the same days, which also strengthens the case of the petitioners that it was not a voluntary act and they were compelled to give their resignations.

08. The Apex Court in the case of Ms. X v/s Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another reported in (2022) 14 SCC 187 has held that if the employer has created circumstances on which the employee had no option but to submit resignation, it cannot be said that the resignation was submitted voluntarily. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:-

''77.For considering as to whether the resignation in the present matter could be construed as voluntary or not, the resignation cannot be considered in isolation, but all the attendant circumstances will have to be taken into consideration.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others

85. Denial of her legitimate expectation could have led to desperation, exasperation and frustration. The frustration of the petitioner is evident from the language used by her in her resignation letter. She stated that as she had been transferred to Sidhi in the mid-academic session of her daughter's Class 12th, it had mostly affected the crucial stage of career of her daughter. She stated that therefore, she was left with no other option but to resign from her post. It appears that in a gruesome battle between a mother and a Judicial Officer, the Judicial Officer lost the battle to the mother.

86. Reaction of a person to a particular situation would depend from person to person. No two individuals can be expected to respond identically to a same situation. It is quite possible that some other person in the petitioner's place, would have chosen to pursue one's own career without bothering about the daughter's education and prospects of good career.

89. The facts in the above case are somewhat similar to the present case. The present case is also not a case where it is required to consider as to whether the relinquishment envisaged under the Rules and Conditions of Service, is unilateral or bilateral in character. In the present case also, the words "with immediate effect" in the resignation letter could not be given undue importance, dehors the context, tenor of language used therein, indicating the circumstances in which it was written. The resignation letter in the present case, as has already been discussed hereinabove, appears to be on account of exasperation and frustration actuated by a thought, that injustice was being meted out to her by the very Institution of Judiciary.''

09. Since those workmen who were terminated and later on taken back in the employment under compliance with an order passed by this Court, we thought that now management would settle this dispute amicably with the petitioners. Hence, vide order dated 08.07.2025, this Court referred them for mediation, but the mediation has failed. Hence, the impugned award dated 22.06.2022, pronounced on 20.06.2022, is hereby set aside. The petitioners/workmen be

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22362

M.P. No.2784 of 2023 & Others reinstated into the service with full back wages.

10. Given the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside. The reference is answered in favour of the petitioners, the action of the respondent / Company in acceptance of resignation is quashed and as a result, the petitioners are reinstated into the service with the back wages. The amount which was paid to the petitioners at the time of resignation is not liable to be recovered, and the same shall be adjusted from terminal dues at the time of retirement.

11. With the aforesaid, all the Miscellaneous Petitions stand allowed.

Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the connected writ appeal also.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE JUDGE Ravi