Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
WP No-565-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF JANUARY, 2025
Writ Petition No.565 of 2009
VIJAY SINGH
Vs.
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 01.10.2024
Pronounced on : 17.01.2025
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is
finally heard.
2. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the assail is to an award dated 08.08.2008 (Annexure-P/12) pronounced on
28.11.2008 whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa, while
deciding the industrial dispute on a reference made by the Labour
Commissioner has decided the reference holding therein that the order
passed by the respondent/Department terminating the petitioner's services
was illegal as the retrenchment was made without following the proper
procedure. At the same time, it has also been observed that the petitioner is
neither entitled to be reinstated in service nor to get any back-wages.
However, the petitioner was found entitled to get compensation to the tune
of Rs.20,000/-.
WP No-565-2009
3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as a Guard
(Labour) in the office of respondent No.3 in the year 1984 and thereafter, a
letter was issued by the officer of the respondent/Department on
15.10.1989 asking the petitioner to work at Chapila Chowki.
(3.1) An association of the labourers known as Bhrastachar Unmoolan
Sangthan was formed, in which, the petitioner was also a member.
Although, on 01.08.1990, when the petitioner's services were terminated,
then the said association raised an objection in this regard mentioning
therein that the petitioner since worked with the respondent/Department
from 1984 till 01.08.1990 and acquired the status of permanent employee,
therefore, his services cannot be terminated in such a manner. In turn, the
respondent/Department instead of reinstating the petitioner, informed the
association to come to the office of the respondent/Department and collect
the payment for which the petitioner is otherwise entitled.
(3.2) However, it is alleged by the petitioner that on his complaint, though
an offence under Section 323 of the IPC got registered against respondent
No.3, but he got acquitted from the trial Court and as such, with mala fide
intention, the order terminating his services has been passed. However, the
office of Labour Commissioner, Indore made a reference which has been
decided by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa by the impugned
award dated 08.08.2008 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-
in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that award passed
by the Labour Commissioner is improper because setting aside the order
terminating the petitioner's services, when it is held that termination of
services was illegal, then there was no reason for not passing an award
directing reinstatement of workman. It is contended that even otherwise
the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement to the tune of
WP No-565-2009
Rs.20,000/- was inadequate and, therefore, it is submitted that at the
present scenario, when no direction for petitioner's reinstatement can be
ordered, the impugned award needs modification to the extent of awarding
compensation in an adequate mannter. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported
in (2016) 1 SCC 521 [Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another] so also upon
Civil Appeal No.5810 of 2021 [Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital
And Others Vs. Munna Prasad Saini and another].
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that looking to the period of service rendered by the petitioner with the
respondent/Department, the amount of compensation as awarded in favour
of the petitioner was just and proper and it does not require any
modification. He has submitted that there was no defect in the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court and according to him, the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the case of Akhilesh Kumar Khare (supra) is concerned,
in the said case, the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs was
awarded by the Court considering the fact that the workmen were out of
employment for more than 20 years and could not seek regular
appointment elsewhere due to overage. Here, in the present case, as is
clear from record, the petitioner rendered his services only for six years as
he was appointed in the year 1984 and removed in the year 1990.
However, looking to the present age of petitioner as he has already
attained the age of superannuation, no direction for his reinstatement can
WP No-565-2009
be passed, but in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in
case of Akhilesh Kumar Khare (supra), which is as under:-
'18. In considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 in Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty [(2020) 9 SCC
126] and after referring to the various decisions, this Court held that the
relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of
reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice and it reads as under:
"2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a
case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to 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
[(2009) 15 SCC 327] 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 [(2006) 1 SCC 479], Uttaranchal Forest Development
Corpn. V M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353], State of M.P. v. Lalit
Kumar Verma [(2007) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007)
9 SCC 748, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute
[(2008) 5 SCC 75, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai
[(2006) 11 SCC 684, GDA v. Ashok Kumar [(2008) 4 SCC 261] and
Mahboob Depak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula [(2008) 1 SCC 575
and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case8, 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 that if
the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the
relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily
follow. However, in 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
WP No-565-2009
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 daily wager
who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.' "
4. Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board
[(2009) 15 SCC 327] has been applied very recently in Telegraph
Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal [(2010) 6 SCC 773], 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.'"
19. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of
the High Court is modified and keeping in view the fact that the respondents
are facing hardship on account of pending litigation for more than two
decades and the fact that some of the respondents are overaged and thus
have lost the opportunity to get a job elsewhere, interest of justice would be
met by directing the appellant University to pay compensation of rupees
four lakhs to each of the respondents. By order dated 11.07.2011, this Court
directed the appellant to comply with the requirements of Section 17-B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is stated that the same is being
complied with. The appellant University is directed to pay the respondents
rupees four lakhs each within four months from the date of receipt of this
judgment. The payment of rupees four lakhs shall be in addition to wages
paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.'
I am of the opinion that the amount of compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,000/- was inadequate and needs to be enhanced.
8. In the case of Munna Prasad Saini (supra), though the Labour
Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and also
reinstatement but the Supreme Court enhancing the same has awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. However,
facts of the said case are different than that of present case for the reason
in the said case the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of
workmen, but it got challenged and, in turn, the Supreme Court, in lieu of
their reinstatement, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.
WP No-565-2009
Moreover in the case in hand, no order of reinstatement was given by the
Labour Court.
9. However, in the present case, though compensation to the tune of
Rs.20,000/- was awarded in favour of the workman, but in the facts and
circumstances of the case at this stage when the petitioner/workman is not
entitled to get any other employment and even the fact in respect of his
employment after passing the impugned award was not brought before
this Court by either side, then under the existing scenario, the impugned
order needs modification. As such, the impugned award dated 08.08.2008
(Annexure-P/12) is modified to the extent that instead of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.4
lacs towards the compensation be paid to the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date date of receipt of copy of this order, failing
which, the delayed payment shall carry interest @8% till its actual
payment is made to the petitioner. It is further made clear that if the
amount already awarded by the Labour Court is received by the petitioner,
then the said amount shall be adjusted with the amount of compensation as
has been awarded by this Court otherwise, the amount of Rs.4 lacs be paid
to the petitioner within the given time.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
DEVASH
MISHRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
2.5.4.20=db02acf8752ec7d40d9c7b
ISH
2706998aa1774d10503fedd8b615a
e6aa42b0742c1,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
MISHRA
serialNumber=BEDBFB3F19D3D59
DD8321BCADFBB1022C2BA335355
DDF542C665C4209BF8F691,
cn=DEVASHISH MISHRA
Date: 2025.01.17 18:17:38 +05'30'
