Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Unit Vikram ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16898
1 WP-13568-2022
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 7 th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13568 of 2022
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. UNIT VIKRAM CEMENT WORKS
THROUGH ITS SENIOR GEMERAL MANAGER SHRI JAYANT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Petitioner - Ultratech Cement Limited by Mr. Girish S. Patwardhan -
Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Rachana Zamindar - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh by Mr. Sudeep Bhargava -
Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
None appears for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Heard on the question of admission.
This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging
order dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional (Labour)
Commissioner, Indore (MP), whereby dispute raised by workman was referred to
the learned Industrial Court, Indore (MP) under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947; and order dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure P/10) passed by
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal, Indore (MP), whereby premature retirement
of the workman before attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, is held to
be illegal; and the employer was directed to pay 50% of the salary / wages for a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16898
2 WP-13568-2022
period of two years to the workman within a period of sixty days.
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue raised in this
petition has been decided by this Court in bunch of writ appeals (Writ Appeal
No.1167 of 2019 , Ultra Tech Cement Limited v. Additional Labour
Commissioner and others as well as other writ appeals, vide order dated
24.09.2024).
3. Shri Girish S. Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
employer - Ultratech Cement Limited in Writ Petition No.11522 of 2022 and Writ
Petition No.13568 of 2022 submits that the workman is not entitled for salary of
two years, because he has nowhere pleaded that he was unemployed, after
retirement at the age of 58 years. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has wrongly
granted him 50% salary i.e. salary of one year. In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance on judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in case of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. S.C. Sharma reported in (2005) 2
SCC 363 and Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and
Engineering Department, Ranchi v. Their Workmen Represented by District
Secretary reported in (2009) 18 SCC 814 .
4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman / State of Madhya Pradesh
submits that in aforesaid relied on cases, the workman / employee was
terminated by way of disciplinary action, hence gainful employment after
termination was the issue under consideration, but in the present case, the
workman was ready to work up to the age of 60 years, but illegally retired at the
age of 58 years, which has been held illegal by this Court and directed to pay
salary for those two years by modifying the award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal for which the workman has filed Writ Petition No.37404 of 2024.
5. The operative part of order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Writ Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16898
3 WP-13568-2022
No.1167 of 2019 and other bunch of cases reads as under: -
"19. The Vikram Cement Lime Stone Mines which is
captive to the Cement Unit of the appellant /petitioner does
not form a composite unit. It is to be noted that the service
conditions of the Workmen working at the limestone mine
and those working at the Cement Unit of the
appellant/petitioner cannot be regulated under the same laws
as they are governed under the Mines Act and Factories Act
1948 respectively. As per Clause 28 of the CSO for the
Vikram Cement Lime Stone Mines, the age of retirement of
Workmen is 58 years. An increase in the age of retirement
of Workmen at the Cement Unit of the appellant/petitioner is
governed under the M.P. Act of 1961.
20. That the appellant/petitioner also filed a bunch of Writ
Petitions ( WP No 1442/2020 and connected cases) before
the Principal bench of this High Court challenging the order
dated 30.9.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court: Stana
in the age of superannuation of the workmen of the appellant
has been held to be 60 years. Vide order dated 08.06.2021
the writ court has dismissed the Writ Petitions by holding
the State Government is the appropriate Government for the
cement industries. All the grounds raised by Shri
Patwardhan learned senior counsel before this court were
also raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner in those Writ Petitions before the writ
court also but all have been rejected. Hence we have no
reason to take a different view.
21. The workmen who have wrongly retired at the age of
58 have also challenged the impugned award whereby they
have only been awarded 50 % of the salary/wages of two
years. Once it has been held that they were entitled to
continue in the service up to the age of 60 and ready to
work, they are entitled to get the full salary of two years.
These Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed."
6. It is a case of premature retirement without making any allegation or
without any disciplinary action, therefore, the respondent / workman was denied
to work for a period of two years by the petitioner. In statement of claim
respondent has specifically claimed salary for two years, because reinstatement
was not possible, as he had crossed the age of 60 (sixty) years. There was a
specific claim for payment of salary for a period of two years, therefore, he is not
require to plead that he was not gainfully employed.
7. With respect to the cases relied upon by Shri Patwardhan, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16898
4 WP-13568-2022
Senior Counsel for the employer - Ultratech Cement Limited, the facts and
circumstances are different from this case. In those cases, there was termination,
during the service period, therefore, he was required to give an affidavit that he
was not gainfully employed anywhere. But in the present case, the workman had
already crossed the age of superannuation and, therefore, he need not to plead that
he was not gainfully employed, which is not permissible for him to work. The
contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the employer - Untratech Cement
Limited is hereby rejected.
8. The order passed in Writ Appeal No.1167 of 2019 shall apply mutatis
mutandis.
9. As a result, Writ Petition No.11522 of 2022 and Writ Petition No.13568
of 2022 are dismissed; and Writ Petition No.37404 of 2024 is allowed. The
respondent - workman is entitled to get 100% back wages i.e. two years salary
from the petitioner - Ultratech Cement Limited.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
rcp
