Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramu Gurjar vs Jiwaji University, Gwalior on 15 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10922
1 MP-2790-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2790 of 2021
RAMU GURJAR
Versus
JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Advocate for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred
by the petitioner-workman assailing the award dated 18.03.2021 passed by
learned Labour Court No.1, Gwalior whereby learned Labour Court No.1
Gwalior had directed the respondent/employer to make payment of
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner -workman in lieu of
reinstatement.
2. The petitioner/workman is aggrieved by the award and mainly
contended that once termination order was found to be in utter violation
of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'), the
Tribunal should have ordered reinstatement with back wages. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 2015 SC 357 (Tapash
Kumar Paul vs. BSNL) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.
No.6715/2011 (Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering & ors. Vs. Naresh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10922
2 MP-2790-2021
Kumar) on 22.02.2023 and the order passed by coordinate Bench in W.P.
No. 5896 of 2016 (Mazid Khan Vs. The Municipal Council Gohad) on
09.05.2017.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- department
contended that there is no illegality in the award. The petitioner was a daily
rated employee and has worked for a period of about two years and two
months and; therefore, question of reinstatement does not arise.
4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The points involved in this case are no more res integra. Admittedly,
the petitioner has worked between 01.09.2016 to 31.10.2018 (about two
years and two months). The Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. Bhurumal
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 opined that in cases of illegal termination of a
daily wager because of procedural defect, namely; violation of Section 25F,
the relief for reinstatement with back wages is not automatic. The Apex
Court opined that in such cases compensation should be paid. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:-
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the
ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages,
when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where
services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally
and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour
practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of
a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal
because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking
the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for
shifting in this direction is obvious."
6. In the present case, the petitioner being a daily wager though had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10922
3 MP-2790-2021
worked for two years but is out of service for approx more than six years and
a half years; therefore, reinstatement would not be proper relief.
7. So far the judgment of Supreme Court in Tapash Kumar Paul vs.
BSNL and another(supra) is concerned, in this judgment it is not clear as to
how many days the appellant therein had worked with the employer before
his termination which became subject matter of challenge before the
Court. In Tapash Kumar Paul(supra) , it was opined that in the very nature of
things, there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back
wages. All relevant consideration will enter the verdict. The Tribunal will
exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. The
only requirement is that the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and
judicious manner. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tapash
Kumar Paul(supra) has not considered the earlier judgment of similar
strength passed in the case of Bhurumal(supra) which is clearly a case of
daily rated employee who had worked for a small duration and was
retrenched without giving him retrenchment compensation.
8. So far as the order relied upon by the petitioner rendered in the case
of Chief Engineer (supra) passed by this Court is concerned, in the said case,
since even after giving opportunity to the Department, record with regard to
working of the workman with the Department was not produced, a negative
interference was drawn against the department, consequently, order of
reinstatement with 50% back-wages was ordered by the Labour Court which
was subsequently affirmed by this Court, but the same is not the case herein,
therefore, the said order is of no help to the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10922
4 MP-2790-2021
9. So far as the order passed by the coordinate Bench relied upon by
the petitioner rendered in the case of Mazid Khan (supra) is concerned, since
the facts of the said case are altogether different from the facts of the present
case, the said order is not applicable to the present case.
10. In view of above and looking to the fact that the petitioner has
worked for a small duration of two years and two months, it will not be
proper to interfere with the award of Tribunal and direct reinstatement of the
workman. Indeed, it will be justifiable to follow the principles laid down in
Bhurumal (supra).
11. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Bhurumal (supra) and looking to the ever increasing inflation, the
court deems it proper to enhance the compensation amount to the tune of
Rs.1,25,000/- in total in place of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the employer shall pay Rs.1,25,000/- as total compensation to
the workman within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
12. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated
above. The petition is partly allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
