Madhya Pradesh High Court
South Central Zone Cultural Centre vs Brijlal Kushwaha on 18 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7860
1 WP-12290-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 18 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12290 of 2008
SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE CULTURAL CENTRE AND OTHERS
Versus
BRIJLAL KUSHWAHA
Appearance:
None for petitioner.
Shri Arvind Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award dated 30.11.2007
passed by Labour Court, Sagar in Case No.44/05 (I.D. Reference).
2. The respondent claims to have been engaged as Mali in the petitioner
No.2/Institutes w.e.f. 01.10.1995 on the consolidated pay of Rs.1931/- per month.
He claims to have continued upto 05.10.2004 when he was orally terminated.
3. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to
the Labour Court. The respondent made an assertion before the Labour Court that
he is unemployed from the date of termination and since he has completed more
than 240 days work in the petitioner - Institute, his termination without complying
with the Provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is illegal. He prayed for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. The petitioners filed the statement of claim denying the claim of respondent.
They denied that the respondent worked for 240 days. It was also submitted before
the Labour Court that before terminating the services of respondent, the Provisions
of Section 25-F is duly complied with in-as-much as the amount towards one
month wages and retrenchment compensation was offered to the respondent vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7860
2 WP-12290-2008
cheque No.356897dated 30.09.2004. However, he refused to accept the same. It
was also submitted before the Labour Court that the envelop containing the said
cheque was sent to the respondent by registered post. However, the same was
returned unserved.
5. Before the Labour Court, the respondent gave his own statement in support of
his claim while the statement of Shri Ganpat Prajapati, Junior Assistant was
recorded on behalf of petitioner. The Labour Court vide award dated 30.11.2007
has recorded the finding that the respondent has worked in the Institute
continuously from 01.10.1995 to 05.10.2004 and thus he has completed more than
240 days work. This finding is supported by Ex.D/1, which is the muster Roll
showing working of respondent. With regard to compliance of Provision of
Section 25-F I.D Act, the Labour Court found that the petitioner failed to establish
that the amount of retrenchment compensation and one month wages was offered
personally. Further with regard to sending the cheque by registered post, the
documents marked as Exs.D/3 to D/7 were produced before the Labour Court.
However, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the envelop containing the
cheque was returned unserved to the petitioner/Institute. Thus, the finding that the
termination of respondent is in violation of Provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act
cannot be said to be perverse.
6. Now the question about grant of relief to the respondent arises. The
respondent was admittedly engaged temporarily on daily wages. He has worked in
the petitioner/Institute more than 20 years back. From the record, it is revealed
that the petitioner must be around 55 years of age by now. In my considered
opinion, the appropriate relief would be to grant adequate compensation to the
respondent in lieu of relief of reinstatement. My aforesaid view finds support with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7860
3 WP-12290-2008
the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the cases of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited Vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar
Vs. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde and Others, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 244, Hari
Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food
Corporation of India and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190, Mahboob
Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 575, Uttar Pradesh State
Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 562, Senior
Superintendent Telegraph Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773
and Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Vs. Gitam Singh, reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 136.
7. The petition is accordingly, disposed of by modifying the award dated
30.11.2007 passed in Case No.44/05 (I.D. Reference) by directing the petitioner to
pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of relief of reinstatement granted
by respondent. Let this be done within 90 days from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
pn
