Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadesh Singh Yadav vs Municipal Council , Pichhor on 11 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3016
1 WP-3452-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3452 of 2025
AWADESH SINGH YADAV
Versus
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL , PICHHOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tej Singh Mahadik - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by Labour Court, Gwalior in Case
No.34/A/ID/2021 by which a compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded in
lieu of reinstatement.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the Labour Court had come
to a conclusion that retrenchment of petitioner was illegal, then instead of
awarding compensation should have directed for reinstatement.
3. Heard learnd counsel for petitioner.
4. The Supreme Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs.
Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the
ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages,
when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where
services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally
and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour
practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a
daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because
of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3016
2 WP-3452-2025
that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
instead the workman should be given mone compensation which will
meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is
obvious."
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop
Ganaptrao Bobde, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 244 has upheld the grant of
compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the respondent had merely worked for a
period of one year.
6. The Supreme Court in the case Hari Nandan Prasad and Another Vs.
Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, reported
in (2014) 7 SCC 190 has held as under:-
''19. The following passages from the said judgment would reflect the
earlier decisions of this Court on the question of reinstatement:
(BSNL case, SCC pp. 187-88, paras 29-30)
"29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments
wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In
BSNL v. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is
set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also
given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it
was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily-
wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2 to 3
years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the
recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
30. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was reiterated by
referring to various judgments, as is clear from the following
discussion: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras 2-4) '2. Should an order of
reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of
a daily-wager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The
course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform
on the above question. 3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State
Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one
of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this
Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain
Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi State
of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram
Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development
Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar Mahboob Deepak v.
Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case,
SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14) "7. It is true that the earlier view
of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3016
3 WP-3452-2025
that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the
relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow.
However, i recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and
in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that
relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the
termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to
meet the ends of justice.* * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a
catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down
that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F
although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with
full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days
of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly,
daily-wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and
instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished
between a dail wager who does not hold a post and a permanent
employee." 4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in
Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated:
(SCC p. 777, para 11) 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and
the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily-wagers about 25
years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of
reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified
and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of
justice.'" * * * * 21. We make it clear that reference to Umadevi, in
the aforesaid discussion is in a situation where the dispute referred
pertained to termination alone. Going by the principles carved out
above, had it been a case where the issue is limited only to the
validity of termination, Appellant 1 would not be entitled to
reinstatement..........."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism
Development Corporation Limited and others, (1986) 4 SCC 337 has held as
under :
"6. Time is now ripe to turn to the next question as to whether it is
obligatory to direct reinstatement when the concerned regulation is
found to be void. In the sphere of employer-employee relations in
public sector undertakings, to which Article 12 of the Constitutioin of
India is attracted, it cannot be posited that reinstatement must
invariably follow as a consequence of holding that an order of
termination of service of an employee is void. No doubt in regard to
"blue collar" workmen and "white collar" employees other than those
belonging to the managerial or similar high level cadre, reinstatement
would be a rule, and compensation in lieu thereof a rare exception.
Insofar as the high level managerial cadre is concerned, the matter
deserves to be viewed from an altogether different perspective - a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3016
4 WP-3452-2025
larger perspective which must take into account the demands of
National Interest and the resultant compulsion to ensure the success
of the public sector in its competitive co the private sector. The fulfil
its life aim or successfully vie with the private sector if it is not
managed by capable and efficient personnel with unimpeachable
integrity and the requisite vision, who enjoy the fullest confidence of
the "policy makers" of such undertakings. Then and then only can the
public sector undertaking achieve the goals of (1) maximum
production for the benefit of the community, (2) social justice for
workers, consumers and the people, and (3) reasonable return on the
public funds invested in the undertaking. 7. It is in public interest that
such undertakings or their Boards of Directors are not compelled and
obliged to entrust their managements to personnel in whom, on
reasonable grounds, they have no trust or faith and with whom they
are in a bona fide manner unable to function harmoniously as a team
working arm- in- arm with success in the aforesaid threethree
dimensional sence as theri common goal. These factors have to be
taken into account by the court at the time of passing the
consequential order, for the court has full discretion in the matter of
granting relief, and the court can sculpture the relief to suit the needs
of the matter at hand. The court, if satisfied that ends of justice so
demand, can certainly direct that the employer shall have the option
not to reinstate provided the employer compensation as indicated by
the court."
Therefore, award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been
recognized by the Supreme Court.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the
Labour Court did not commit any mistake by awarding compensation of
Rs.60,000/- in lieu of reinstatment because petitioner had worked only for a
period of three years on the post of Driver.
9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
