Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commcercial Synbags Ltd. vs Vinod Babele on 25 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23666
1 MP-4313-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4313 of 2025
COMMCERCIAL SYNBAGS LTD.
Versus
VINOD BABELE
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Oshin Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the
Chairman, Industrial Court, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 129/MPIR/2024
whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay backwages to the
respondent from 23.01.2020 to 21.12.2022.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner is a company
engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Synthetic Woven
Sacks. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner since 2005
working as 'Loom Fitter' on a salary of Rs, 11,500/-. On 29.11.2019, the
respondent met with an accident while working in the loom machine. He
sustained injuries and was initially admitted to the ESI Hospital at Pithampur
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23666
2 MP-4313-2025
and thereafter at Indore for treatment. After being declared fit, on
20.01.2020 the respondent approached the petitioner company for joining
along with the fitness certificate. He was told to come again after two days
by the Mr. Sunil Joshi, H.R. Manager. However, when he again approached
the petitioner for joining, he was asked to tender his resignation in writing.
When he refused to give resignation, he was terminated from the service on
23.01.2020 and since then the respondent is unemployed.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the Labour Court by
way of application under Section 31 (3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of
the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'MPIR Act'). The Labour Court passed an interim order dated
13.12.2022 directing the petitioner to accept the joining and accordingly, the
respondent joined the company on 21.12.2022. Vide order dated 17.09.2024,
the Labour Court has declared the termination of the respondent as illegal
and directed to reinstate him within a month. The petitioner did not
challenge the order dated 17.09.2024 as the respondent had already been
given joining.
4. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Industrial Court by way
of appeal challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 whereby he has been
denied the backwages. The petitioner appeared before the Industrial Court
and opposed the appeal. Vide impugned award dated 24.01.2025, the
learned Industrial Court has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to
pay full backwages from 23.01.2020 to 21.12.2022 within 60 days. Hence,
this petition before this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23666
3 MP-4313-2025
5. Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the learned Industrial Court has wrongly directed for payment of
backwages without assigning any valied reason. In support of his
contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in case of Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ananta
Saha and Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 142; M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Jarina
Bee, (2003) 6 SCC14; U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Udai
Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 wherein it has been held that there cannot
be a consequential direction for payment of backwages even in case the
termination is declared illegal. Therefore, without considering the aforesaid
case laws, the Industrial Court has wrongly awarded the backwages.
6. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
perused the impugned order.
7. Admittedly, the termination of the respondent has been declared
illegal by the Labour Court which the petitioner did not challenge by way of
appeal. The respondent claimed reinstatement with backwages before the
Labour Court. However, the Labour Court has not passed any order denying
backwages despite declaring his termination as illegal termination. It was the
duty of the Labour Court to assign reasons for denying the backwages to the
respondent.
8. In the present case, the respondent sustained injuries while
working in the loom machine in the petitioner's company. He was
undergoing treatment in the ESI Hospital. The petitioner has not come up
with any material to show that any financial assistance was provided to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23666
4 MP-4313-2025
respondent during that period. On the contrary, when the respondent came
for joining along with fitness certificate, he was denied joining and was
terminated from the service. Therefore, the act of the petitioner is not an act
of a model employer. The respondent was neither treated as an unauthorized
absentee nor any charge-sheet was issued to him. He was simply denied
joining after he was declared fit rendering him unemployed. The petitioner
gave him joining only when the Labour Court passed an interim order to that
effect. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Industrial Court
has rightly awarded backwages to the respondent for the period from
23.01.2020 to 21.12.2022 when he was unnecessarily made to suffer by the
petitioner.
9. Hence, finding no ground for interference in the impugned order,
this petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
