Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Savita vs Madhya Pradesh Road Transport ... on 16 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 M.P. No.252/2019 & 5422/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.252/2019
MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
OTHERS
VS.
JAGDISH SAVITA
&
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.5422/2018
JAGDISH SAVITA
VS.
MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
OTHERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances:-
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners/
MPRTC.
Shri Ravi Jain - Advocate for the respondent/ Jagdish Savita.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Delivered on 16th day of June, 2025)
1. Regard being had to similitude of the controversy, both the
petitions were heard analogously and are decided by a common
order. For convenience's sake, facts of M.P. No.252/2019 are taken
into consideration.
2. The instant petitions are two connected matters in which M.P.
No.252/2019 is being preferred by M.P. Road Transport Corporation
and M.P. No.5422/2018 is preferred by one Jagdish Savita
(hereinafter referred as "employee") against the M.P.R.T.C.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/ employee
was working as "Painter" in the M.P. Road Transport Corporation
(for brevity "MPRTC") since 1987. Since MPRTC was suffering
loss thus, introduced the scheme of Voluntarily Retirement Scheme
(VRS Scheme) in the year 2000.
4. Respondent/ employee preferred for VRS vide application
dated 10/09/2001 (Annexure P/5 of M.P. No.5422/2018), but the
same was not accepted by the petitioners/Corporation. Therefore,
respondent/ employee filed a writ petition vide No.1854/2003 before
this Court, which was decided vide order dated 01/07/2003 and it
was directed to the petitioner No.1/ employer to consider the
application submitted by the respondent/ employee seeking
retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Corporation. It
appears that the said application was considered by the
petitioners/Corporation and got rejected vide order dated 01/08/2003
due to absence of any specific direction and inadequacy of funds.
5. It further appears from the pleadings and submissions that
respondent/ employee wanted to contest the election as Councillor/
Corporator of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior which was likely to
be held in the year 2004, therefore, on 03/11/2004, he preferred his
resignation and prayed for its acceptance immediately. He also
expressed his willingness to dispense with 01 month's salary. The
said resignation was placed before the Senior Depot Manager of
M.P.R.T.C., Gwalior Depot and the same was accepted vide order
dated 03/11/2004 (Annexure P/10 of the employee's petition) by
Senior Depot Manager elaborating the reasons for accepting his
resignation.
6. Thereafter, it appears that respondent/ employee contested the
election of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and was elected
as"Councilor" from Ward No.34 and enjoyed the post for full 05
years' term. However, on 12/08/2005 (when he was a Councilor), he
filed an application under Sections 31(3), 61, 62 and 64-A of the
M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as "MPIR
Act") before the Labour Court, Gwalior.
7. Matter kept pending for 07 years and vide order dated
27/04/2012, the Labour Court passed an order whereby
petitioners/Corporation was directed to reinstate respondent/
employee with 15% back wages. Labour Court although gave
finding that after resignation, all dues were taken by respondent/
employee and he remained Councilor of Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior, but resignation was accepted by the Senior Depot Manager
whereas appointing authority of the respondent/ employee was the
Chief Works Manager, therefore, resignation was accepted by the
incompetent authority. On this technical ground, Labour Court
passed the order of reinstatement of the respondent/ employee with
15% back wages.
8. Against said order of Labour Court, petitioners/ Corporation
preferred an appeal before M.P. Industrial Tribunal Gwalior vide
No.21/MPIR/2012 against reinstatement and 15% back wages,
whereas respondent/ employee preferred an appeal vide appeal
No.23/MPIR/2012 for 100% back wages. Both the appeals were
analogously heard and decided by a common order vide order dated
19/07/2018. By the said order, appeal preferred by the
respondent/employee was dismissed and it was found that
respondent/employee was not entitled to get any back wages,
however, order of reinstatement was affirmed. Therefore, petitioner/
Corporation preferred this petition (M.P. No.252/2019) against the
order of reinstatement passed by the Industrial Court, Gwalior
whereas respondent/ employee preferred petition (M.P.
No.5422/2018) for 100% back wages.
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners/Corporation that both the Courts below despite
appreciating the fact that resignation was given by respondent/
employee in full state of mind, illegally reinstated the respondent/
employee, which is against the dictum of law.
9. It is further submitted that resignation was given by the
respondent employee in writing and he did not give any application
for recall of resignation, therefore, resignation was valid. He further
submits that respondent/ employee did not produce any document in
respect of his mental illness to show that resignation was given by
him to the authority under some mental pressure therefore, plea taken
by the employee before the Courts below that he was under mental
pressure, was without any factual foundation. Both the Courts below
erred in accepting such submission.
10. Further submission of learned counsel is that motive of
resignation was proved. Respondent/ employee contested the
election of Councilor in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and won
the election from Ward No.34. He enjoyed the tenure. Therefore,
motive for which respondent/ employee tendered resignation, came
to the knowledge of both the Courts below therefore, filing
application for reinstatement before the Labour Court by the
respondent/ employee was nothing but an abuse of process of law
however, both the Courts below gave undue weightage to the
mischief of respondent/employee. He enjoyed full tenure of 05 years
as councillor and thereafter, pressed his application for reinstatement
before the Labour Court.
11. It is further submitted that after giving resignation respondent/
employee took all his emoluments i.e. his service benefits as well as
retiral benefits etc. therefore, he was clear in his thought that what
decision he has taken. It is a case of 'Resignation' and not of
'Punishment', whereas Courts below proceeded on the assumption
that punishment has been awarded to the respondent/ employee and
applied law incorrectly.
12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners/ Corporation by
way of an application under Section 57 of the Evidence Act placed
an order dated 22/03/2004 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Managing
Director, MPRTC by which taking recourse to provisions of M.P.
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter
referred as "Rules, 1963"), he appointed Senior Depot Manager Mr.
N.N. Rai (Senior Manager Traffic) Division, Gwalior as "Manager"
for all the employees for the purpose of disciplinary action.
13. According to learned counsel, as per Clause 1(a) appended to
Annexure of Rules, 1963, "Manager" is defined and from perusal
of definition of "Manager", it is clear that person who is notified as
Manager under this Standing orders, will have all the powers of any
act prescribed in the Rules, 1963 which also includes termination of
an employee under Rule 11 thereof.
14. Learned counsel also refers the fact that vide order dated
08/03/2019, this Court stayed effect and operation of the order
passed in Appeal No.21/MPIR/2012 dated 19/07/2018 and order
dated 27/04/2012 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in
COC/136/A/MPIR/2005, therefore, there is no question of decision
to be taken over the application filed by the respondent/ employee
purportedly under Section 65(3) of the MPIR Act. He refers
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bada Malhara Vs. Yashwant Singh Bundela
and Another, 2008(2) MPLJ 282 and order dated 10/11/2017
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.399/2017
(Punj Llyod Limited thr. Vs. Rakesh Shrivastava).
15. On the other hand, learned counsel respondent/employee
opposed the prayer and submits that respondent/employee was
harassed by the petitioners/ Corporation and under some mental was
pressure, he resigned. Besides that resignation was accepted by the
Senior Depot Manager whereas, the appointing authority of
respondent/ employee is the Chief Works Manager therefore,
resignation accepted by Senior Depot Manager dehors the authority.
It is further submitted that the respondent/ employee is entitled to be
reinstated with 100% back wages. Both the Courts below ignored
this aspect that respondent is an employee and deserves to be
reinstated with full back wages.
16. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel, 1999 SCC (L&S)
466 and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Secretary General, Family Planning Association, Mumbai and
Others Vs. Sunil Kumar Shrivastava and Another, 2007 (113)
FLR 119.
17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record/documents.
18. This a case where respondent/ employee is seeking
reinstatement with full back wages and petitioners/ Corporation is
seeking quashment of both the orders of the Courts below whereby
reinstatement was ordered.
19. In the year 2000, financial condition of M.P.R.T.C. became
vulnerable and it went on the path of sickness.
During that period, many employees took VRS and many attempted
to take VRS for some better posture. Respondent/ employee also
took his chance but, failed because of the policy issued and paucity
of funds. Thereafter, respondent/ employee filed his resignation
before the Chief Depot Manager. Main ground of attack of
respondent/employee was that the Senior Depot Manager was not the
competent authority to accept the resignation. However, going
through the order dated 22/03/2004 (Annexure P-6) issued by the
Managing Director in which, Chief Depot Manager Mr. N.N. Rai
was declared as "Manager" for all the disciplinary action for the
employees of Gwalior Division, it is established that such contention
of respondent lacks merits. The said order was purportedly passed
under the provision of Rules, 1963, which gives power to the
employer to issue such notification.
20. This aspect has been dealt with in a case of Ram Gopal Sen
Vs. M.P.S.R.T.C., 1982 MPWN 181, in which learned Single Judge
considering the definition of "Manager" as per the Standing Orders
held that under Clause 1(a) of the Rules, 1963, Manager includes as
person authorized by the General Manager of the Corporation. Even
otherwise, on M.P.R.T.C. (as establishment), MPIR Act and Rules of
1963 are applicable.
21. As per rule 11(C) of the Rules, 1963, any employee who is
desirous to leave the employment can give one month's prior notice
to his departmental officer and can further leave the employment.
Even, the said employee can be relieved prior to expiry of one
month's notice period.
For ready reference, Rule 11 (c) is reproduced as under:-
"l1. Termination of employment and the notice
thereof to he given by employer and employee
(a)..................................
(b)...................................
(c) Any permanent employee desirous of
leaving the employment shall give one month's
notice to his departmental officer stating the
reason for which he is leaving but if he so
requires he may be relieved earlier than the date
on which the period of notice expires"
22. From bare perusal of the above mentioned provision, it is clear
that even no order is required to be passed in case an employee
wishes to resign from his employment, the only requirement is to
give 01 month's prior notice. Even this requirement can be waived if
employee desires so.
23. In the instant case, respondent/ employee made a specific
prayer to waive 01 month's salary because he wanted to contest the
election of 'Councillor' of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior
therefore, he was in hurry and wanted to get rid of the
petitioners/Corporation somehow so that he can file his nomination
paper declaring himself as former employee of the MPRTC because
in absence thereof, his candidature as Councillor would have been
rejected being employee of the petitioners/Corporation. Therefore,
once he himself wanted to get rid of the Corporation and availed the
benefit of Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior for 05
years term, then the whole story of resignation being guided by the
mental illness and harassment shows mischief of the
respondent/employees.
24. Respondent/ employee cannot be given premium for any
technical gap if at all ensued, because this would be amounting to
abuse of process of law. So far as technical objection of resignation
by an incompetent authority is concerned, it is a "Resignation" not
"Termination". Therefore, if resignation is placed by the
respondent/ employee before the Senior Depot Manger then, it does
not constitute any illegality because Managing Director earlier vide
order dated 22/03/2004 (Annexure P-6) already declared the " Senior
Depot Manager" as competent authority for all disciplinary action for
all the employees of Gwalior Division.
25. From perusal of Clause 1(a) of the Rules, 1963 and order dated
22/03/2004 (Annexure P/6), only one inference is drawn that the
"Senior Depot Manager" was the competent authority to accept
resignation of an employee (respondent in the present case). It has to
be remind that it is a case of "Resignation" and not "Termination",
therefore, analogy adopted by the both the Courts below suffered
from illegality and perversity.
26. It appears that both the Courts below not only caused illegality
but also ignored the mischief committed by the
respondent/employee. On the one hand, he cleverly filed resignation,
got it accepted and never made any claim for recall of his resignation
and contested the election of Councillor, he enjoyed the full tenure
and on the other hand, after completion of his tenure, he pressed the
application for reinstatement with full back wages, on which Courts
below passed the impugned orders. Such mischief cannot be allowed
to persist. Therefore, the petition filed by the M.P.R.T.C. (М.Р.
No.252/2019) is allowed.
27. At this stage, this Court intends to dwell upon the application
filed by the respondent/ employee under Section 65(3) of the MPIR
Act, which was filed on 26/02/2019 but on 08/03/2019, this Court
passed a specific interim order regarding stay of impugned orders
passed by the Courts below despite pending application and being
aware of the provision of Section 65 (3) of the MPIR Act.
28. No condition has been put by this Court against the petitioners
to comply with Section 65(3) of the MPIR Act while granting stay
vide order dated 08/03/2019. Thereafter, matter was pending and
Interim Relief remain continued. No efforts have been taken by the
respondent/ employee to get the order vacated or matter to be heard
finally.
29. Even otherwise, this Court can hear the matter in view of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc
Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Anr., 2001 (10) SCC 211 and
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi
(supra) and Punj Llyod (supra).
30. In the present case, for the period which respondent/ employee
sought back wages, part of period is Co-terminus viz a viz employee
of the Corporation and as Councillor of the Municipal Corporation,
Gwalior. He does not deserve any benefit arising out of illegal
orders.
31. Therefore, in cumulative facts and circumstances of the case
where mischief of respondent/ employee is writ large, no case for
interference for reinstatement with back wages is made out. The
Miscellaneous Petition No.252/2019 filed by the M.P.R.T.C.,
Gwalior is allowed and order dated 19/07/2018 passed by the
Industrial Court, Gwalior in Appeal No.21/MPIR/2012 and Appeal
No.23/MPIR/2012 and order dated 27/04/2012 passed by the Labour
Court-I, Gwalior in Case No.136/MPIR/2005 are hereby set aside.
32. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Petition No.5422/2018 preferred
by respondent/ employee - Jagdish Savita stands dismissed in view
of the discussion made above.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
vc
VARSHA Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
CHATURV
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf20e67d11d7f
91045d81139f6792fbd4ae91f, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=652FE82BC5CAE8153A1E34C3B8EFC09
EDI
5F5A0D144B089415F31342D1C8E2D3139,
cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI
Date: 2025.06.17 11:50:21 +05'30'
