Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagar Palika Parishad Raisen vs Kriasna Gopal Chaturvrdi on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20121
1 WA-14-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 14 of 2025
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD RAISEN
Versus
KRISHNA GOPAL CHATURVEDI
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the Petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The instant appeal has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated
05/09/2024 (ANNX.A-1) passed by Hon'ble Single
Judge in W.P. No.(20443/2015 allowing the instant
appeals, in the interest of justice.
(ii) To direct the respondents, produce the
documents relates to appointment and working in the
department in year 2007 to 2012 in the interest of
Justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20121
2 WA-14-2025
finds the appellant entitled to be also granted."
2. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the private
respondent clearly failed to prove any documents relating to appointment as
a daily rated employee and never filed any documents relating to work in the
year 1993 to 2007 and filed the case before the Labour Court on the
allegation that Department orally terminated the services of the Petitioner,
which is illegal, arbitrary and violates his rights. However, the Labour Court
passed the award on the ground that petitioner had completed 240 days in a
Single Calendar year right from the year 1992 to 2007, only on the basis of
the statement of the employee.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that
the Department never engaged the respondent as a daily rated employee and
the employee never produced any document regarding his working in the
said Department. The Labour Court relied the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and passed the impugned award on the basis of said judgment
which is illegal without considering the delay in filing the claim.
4. The case of the respondent/petitioner before the Writ Court was that
compensation of only Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner which is not
sufficient and adequate. He relied upon the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd. Vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and the compensation
amount has been enhanced by Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only).
Compensation is ordered to be paid within a period of two months, failing
which the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from
the date of judgment. The petitioner's services were terminated long back and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20121
3 WA-14-2025
since then, he is litigating before the Courts and amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
(One Lakh only) is inadequate as observed by the Writ Court. The Writ
Court has also observed that in similar circumstances, in the year 2014,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only). The present case is of the year 2025.
5. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid fact, the Writ Petition was
disposed off enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- (One
lakh only) to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs only).
6. We put a query to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that whether the award passed by the Labour Court whereby an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded to the writ petitioner was challenged. He replied
that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) has been accepted by the
appellant herein and it was not challenged. The Writ Court by considering
the said fact that the case of the present petitioner is of working for 14 years
and award of compensation was made by the Labour Court in the year 2015,
while in the case of year 2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the
amount to Rs.3,00,000/-.
7. Thus, we find no perversity in the Order passed by the Writ Court.
Though the subject involved small issue, the employer should think for 100
times whether such Order can be challenged before the High Court or not. It
seems that in the decision taken to file the appeal by the Employer, there has
no pain taken and the decision to file the present appeal is without
application of mind and more care should have been shown while filing such
cases.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20121
4 WA-14-2025
8. Therefore, we hereby while dismissing the Writ Appeal, further
enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lakhs only)
to Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) to be paid to the appellant within a period
of two months from today.
9. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within the time limit
then the same will carry interest @ 12% per annum.
10. It is made clear that in case, the award of compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) is already paid to the writ petitioner, then the
difference amount shall be paid to the writ petitioner.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
veni
