Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Phulwani vs Chief Municipal Officer on 23 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1 W.A.No.736/2023, W.A. No.737/2023 & W.A. No.738/2023
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON 23rd JANUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL NO.736/2023
Pradeep Kumar Ahirwar
Vs.
Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Ganj Basoda
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.737/2023
Raju Phulwani
Vs.
Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ganj Basoda
&
WRIT APPEAL NO.738/2023
Chandra Prakash Thakur
&
Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Ganj Basoda
Ms. Somya Chaturvedi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arun Dudhawat - Advocate for the respondent/ Municipal
Council.
1. Regard being had to similitude of the dispute, all three appeals are
heard analogously and decided by a common judgment. For factual
clarity, facts of Writ Appeal No.736/2023 are taken into consideration.
2. The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uccha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
2 W.A.No.736/2023, W.A. No.737/2023 & W.A. No.738/2023
filed challenging the order dated 21-04-2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Misc. Petition No.1289/2020 whereby Misc. petition preferred
by the respondent (as petitioner) was partly allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/employee herein
(respondent in Misc. Petition) claimed that he was appointed as a daily
wager on the vacant post of permanent worker by the respondent/
department on 01-06-2015. He worked for around two years (which is
more than 240 days) with full dedication but his services was terminated
on 23-09-2017 without giving any notice and no retrenchment
compensation was paid to him, therefore, his termination was in violation
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant/employee
filed an application before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
considering the evidence available on record found that appellant had
worked for more than 240 days and his termination was illegal therefore,
he is entitled to get the benefits in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The Labour also directed that appellant/employee may be
reinstated in the services from the back date on his previous post but
without back wages.
4. Against the said order, respondent/ department filed Misc. Petition
No.1289/2020 before the Writ Court wherein his submission was that
appellant/ employee was appointed purely on a casual basis as per the
requirement of work and not against any regular vacant post, therefore,
his termination was in accordance with law and provisions of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Dispute Act will not be applicable in case of the
appellant/ employee.
3 W.A.No.736/2023, W.A. No.737/2023 & W.A. No.738/2023
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/employee (respondent therein)
relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in different cases submitted
before the Writ Court that Section 25-E is applicable and provisions
thereof are attracted even in cases of illegal appointments.
6. The learned Writ Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival
parties and examining the law laid in this regard, found that appellant/
employee was retrenched without giving him any notice and without
paying retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Writ Court partly allowed the Misc. Petition
and set aside the order of the Labour Court and directed that appellant/
employee is entitled only for compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand only) in lieu of his retrenchment in place of reinstatement as
he was not engaged against any regular vacant post instead was engaged
to perform the work of causal / intermittent nature on a daily wage basis
and worked only for a limited period of time as well as the order of
retrenchment was also passed way back in the year 2017.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned Writ Court erred in passing the impugned order whereas the
Labour Court after giving due consideration to the fact situation and law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, rightly found that
appellant/ employee had worked for more than 240 days continuously and
therefore, retrenchment is illegal and rightly directed for reinstatement
without back wages. He relied upon different judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to support his submissions.
4 W.A.No.736/2023, W.A. No.737/2023 & W.A. No.738/2023
8. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and
supports the impugned order of the Writ Court.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. This is a case where appellant/ employee has taken exception to the
order dated 21-04-2023 passed in M.P. No.1289/2020 whereby the
learned Writ Court partly allowed the Misc. Petition preferred by
respondent/ CEO, Municipal Council, Vidisha and impugned order dated
29-11-2019 passed by the Labour Court No.2 Bhopal (M.P.) was set aside.
The Writ Court directed that Rs.50,000/- as retrenchment compensation
shall be paid to the appellant/ employee. On close scrutiny, it appears that
appellant/ employee sought reinstatement in the Labour Court and the
Labour Court on the basis of testimony of appellant/ employee found that
he was illegally retrenched and therefore, passed the order of
retrenchment, however, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
discussed by the learned Writ Court in the case of Hari Nandan Vs. Food
Corporation of India [(2014) 7 SCC 190], even if workman has
completed 240 days in the work in a year preceding the date of
termination, particularly, daily wagers, reinstatement with full back wages
is not necessary concomitant of holding retrenchment as illegal. In the
case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh [(2012) 1 SCC 558], relief of
reinstatement cannot be given as a matter of right.
11. In the case of Incharge Officer & Anr. Vs. Shankar Shetty
[(2010) 9 SCC 126], compensation was found to be proper in lieu of
reinstatement.
12. In the present case, retrenchment compensation was awarded by the
5 W.A.No.736/2023, W.A. No.737/2023 & W.A. No.738/2023
learned Writ Court. However, reply filed by the respondent/ Municipal
Council indicates that during pendency of M.P. No.1289/2020 and
subsequent to it, respondent/ Municipal Council has paid around Rs.3.20
lacs to the appellant/ employee that too when it is the specific stand of
Municipal Council that appellant/ employee was a casual worker and he
was dis-continued vide order dated 04-08-2016. Retrenchment
compensation of Rs.50,000/- as directed by the learned Writ Court has
already been deposited by the Municipal Council.
13. After considering the fact situation, submissions of the parties and
going through the impugned order of the Writ Court, it appears that no
case for interference is made out especially when appellant/ employee is
suitably compensated to the tune of Rs.3.20 lacs till date. Additional
amount of Rs.50,000/- as retrenchment compensation has already been
paid by the Municipal Council to the appellant/ employee in compliance
of the order of the Writ Court.
14. Except this, all contention of the appellant/ employee stands
rejected. The learned Writ Court did not commit any error in passing the
impugned order. As such, no interference is warranted in the impugned
order, the writ appeals are hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be retained in the connected writ appeals.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
VARSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
CHATURV
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf2
0e67d11d7f91045d81139f6792fbd4ae91f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
EDI
serialNumber=652FE82BC5CAE8153A1E3
4C3B8EFC095F5A0D144B089415F31342D
1C8E2D3139, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI
Date: 2025.02.14 18:00:44 +05'30'
