Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgesh Kumar Soni vs State Of Mp Through The Sub Divisional ... on 10 September, 2025
1 WP-34763-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 10th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34763 of 2024
DURGESH KUMAR SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MP THROUGH THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narmada Prasad Choudhary - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the award Annexure P-
1 dated 14.12.2016 in Case No.3/I.D. Reference/2015 passed by the Labour
Court, Narsinghpur so also the award dated 14.12.2016 passed in Case
No.1/I.D.Reference/2015 by the same court.
2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioner is
similarly placed as the case in W.P. No.6670/2023 which was filed by the
present petitioners Durgesh Kumar Soni and Roop Lal Mehra along with
another employee Nilesh Kumar Sen but since the present petitioners
inadvertently skipped to file the awards of Labour Court in the said petition,
therefore, the writ petition was entertained and allowed only for Nilesh
Kumar Sen. It is contended that this Court had granted liberty in the
aforesaid order passed in W.P. No.6670/2023 to file fresh petition to the
extent of present petitioners by challenging the award of the Labour Court
2 WP-34763-2024
and now in terms of the said liberty, the present petition has been filed.
3. It is contended that the Labour Court passed identically worded awards
in case of all the three persons and therefore, the case of the petitioners is
similarly situated as W.P. No.6670/2023 and the order in that case would
apply to the case of present petitioners also. It is further contended that the
said order has been affirmed in W.A. No.2939/2024 by the Division Bench.
4 . Per contra, counsel for the State has stated that the appointment order
Annexure P-8 relied by the petitioners indicating their appointment is a
forged document and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. This Court in W.P. No.6670/2023 while entertaining the petition to
extent of Nilesh Kumar Sen has passed the following order:-
"The present petition has been filed challenging the award
(Annexure P-1) dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Labour Court,
Narsinghpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, discloses that
petitioners had earlier also filed petitions before this Court and
orders are placed on record at page 32 to 39 of the present petition.
It is contended that the said petitions were dismissed as no relief
against the impugned award was sought. Thereafter writ appeals
were filed by the present petitioners and orders are placed on
record as (Annexure P-2) wherein it was observed by the Division
Bench that petitioners are at liberty to pursue such remedy as
available under the law in respect of the impugned award. Thus,
the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned
award.
3 . Though the present petition has been filed on behalf of
Durgesh Kumar Soni, Neelesh Kumar Sen and Roop Lal Mehra
3 WP-34763-2024
but the award only in respect of Neelsh Kumar Sen has been
placed on record and has been put to challenge by the petitioners.
Thus, the present petition is entertained only in respect of
petitioner No.2- Neelesh Kumar Sen reserving liberty to petitioner
No.1 - Durgesh Kumar Soni and petitioner No.3- Roop Lal Mehra
to file a fresh petition because awards in their respect are not
placed on record.
4. The present petition challenges the award (Annexure P-1)
dated 14.12.2016 whereby the Labour Court, Narsinghpur has
given finding that the petitioner has worked from 05.11.2003 till
30.11.2014 and also given finding that he has worked for 240 days
in each of the said years. Despite that upon holding that the
undertaking has closed, instead of reinstatement of the petitioner or
giving compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the Labour Court has
only awarded one month salary and closure compensation to the
tune of Rs. 32670/-.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award is bad
in law because the only contention of the respondents was that the
work of water supply carried out by the Public Health and
Engineering (PHE) Department has been handed over to Gram
Panchayat in that particular village. However, the PHE
Department has not been closed down and the said department is
still functioning in the State of M.P.. Thus, the aspect of closure of
undertaking is patently perverse because PHE department is still
operational. The Labour Court despite giving finding that the
petitioner has been retrenched without giving any retrenchment
compensation and he having worked for 240 days in each calendar
year for the last 11 years has not passed any order/ award for
reinstatement or compensation in lieu of reinstatement but has only
4 WP-34763-2024
passed award for retrenchment/closure compensation which is bad
in law.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner was working only on daily wages and as per instructions
received from State Government his services were dispensed with
whereby all payments being made through head receipts were
directed to be stopped and since the petitioner was being paid
through head receipts his services were dispensed with.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The logic adopted by the Labour Court is alien to law because
the Labour Court has held that the petitioner has duly worked for
240 days in each year and he has worked from year 2003 to 2014.
The Labour Court has rightly held that reinstatement may not be
the only consequence of violation of Section 25-F but the Labour
Court could not have held that there was closure of undertaking
and the petitioner is only entitled to closure compensation in terms
of Section 25-FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even it is not
disputed by learned counsel for the State during the course of
argument that PHE department is still working in the State of M.P.
and is carrying out work of water supply and ancillary works in
various parts of Madhya Pradesh. Thus the finding of the Labour
Court that there has been closure of undertaking is totally perverse
and is not based on any averment.
9. The result of violation of Section 25-F of ID Act can either be
reinstatement of workman or compensation in lieu of
reinstatement, if any circumstances are indeed shown by the
employer which may justify granting lump sum compensation in
lieu of reinstatement. This would be a compensation in lieu of
5 WP-34763-2024
reinstatement and not closure compensation or retrenchment
compensation. The employer cannot be rewarded by violating
Section 25-F of ID Act and workman cannot be given relief only
of payment of retrenchment/closure compensation. In Devinder
Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"18. This Court has repeatedly held that the
provisions contained in Sections 25-F(a) and (b) are
mandatory and termination of the service of a
workman, which amounts to retrenchment within the
meaning of Section 2(oo) without giving one month's
notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment
compensation is null and void/illegal/inoperative.
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [AIR
1960 SC 610], Bombay Union of Journalists v. State
of Bombay [AIR 1964 SC 1617], SBI v. N. Sundara
Money [(1976) 1 SCC 822 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 132] ,
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala [(1980) 3 SCC
340 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 409] , Mohan Lal v. Bharat
Electronics Ltd. [(1981) 3 SCC 225 : 1981 SCC
(L&S) 478], L. Robert D'Souza v. Southern Railway
[(1982) 1 SCC 645 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 124], Surendra
Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC
(L&S) 16], Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass
[(1984) 1 SCC 509 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 144] , Gurmail
Singh v. State of Punjab [(1991) 1 SCC 189 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 147] and Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar
[(2003) 4 SCC 619 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 545].
19. In Anoop Sharma v. Public Health
Division [(2010) 5 SCC 497 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
63] the Court considered the effect of violation of
Section 25-F, referred to various precedents on the
subject and held the termination of service of a
workman without complying with the mandatory
provisions contained in Sections 25-F(a) and (b)
should ordinarily result in his reinstatement."
10. Consequently, the award (Annexure P-1) is set aside and
looking to the circumstances that petitioner has worked in the
respondent organization from 2003 to 2014, the petitioner is held
entitled for reinstatement in service on the same status he was
6 WP-34763-2024
holding at the time of his retrenchment in 2014. The petitioner
would be entitled for 25% backwages from the date of termination
/ retrenchment till today.
11. In view of aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of."
6. So far as the letter Annexure P-8 being forged is concerned, the said
aspect was agitated by the State by way of filing Review Petition
No.596/2025 and this Court by a detailed order dated 02.05.2025 has
dismissed the said review petition holding that the departmental witness
himself before the Labour Court has admitted that the petitioner therein is
working since the year 2003. It is imperative to mention that the order
Annexure P-8 is the same order which was order Annexure P-4 in W.P.
No.6670/2023 and in review petition this Court has categorically held that
the assertion of the State that the said order is forged one, does not hold
water because the departmental witness had admitted before the Labour
Court regarding the petitioner therein having worked from 2003 till 2014.
The review petition has been dismissed holding the following:-
"8. The said document Annexure P/4 was filed by the writ
petitioner and the present petitioner who was respondent had filed
reply but did not take any defence that the document Annexure P/4
is forged. Moreover, this Court decided the writ petition not on the
basis of the said document Annexure P/4 but on the basis of the
findings of the Labour Court which have not been assailed by the
State Government at any point of time ever.
9. Before the Labour Court the departmental witness Shri N.R.
Donmgre had categorically stated that the respondent workman
has worked form 2003 to 2014. The labour court in its award
which has not been challenged by the State Government till date
has held in paragraphs No. 13 and 14 as under:-
"13. तीय प सा ी एन.आर. डोगरे ने अपने शपथ प
कथन कये है क थम प दै िनक वेतन भोगी कमचार के
7 WP-34763-2024
प म ना तो िनयु कया गया ना ह उसे कोई पद दया
गया. थम प ख डं त मजदरू के प म कायरत रहा है ।
थम प के सबंध मे कायवाह म. . शासन के आदे श
दनांक 17-10-2014 के िनदश के प रपालन म क गई है ।
म. . शासन ारा है ड रसी ट के मा यम से भी सभी
भुगतान पर रोक लगाई गई है . इस कारण थम प से
काय नह ं िलया जा रहा है ।
14. इस सा ी ने ितपर ण म कहा है क उसक
पो टं ग वष 2013 मे हुई है इस कारण वह नह ं बता सकता
क थम प क िनयु १० वष पूव हुई थी अथवा नह
सा ी ने वीकार कया थम प को सेवापृथक के पूव
कोई नो टस नह ं दया गया ना ह छटनी मुआवजा
या अ य कोई प रतोष दान नह कया गया है । इस सा ी
ने ितपर ण म वीकार कया है क थम प क काय
क आव यकता वभाग को है । इस सा ी ने ितपर ण मे
वीकार कया है क पेयजल क यव था के िलये उसका
वभाग ह काय करवाता है तथा है ड पंप लगाने से लेकर
उसके रखरखाव का काय उसका वभाग करता है ा सा ी ने
वीकार कया है । क रकाड के अनुसार थम प ने 2003
से 2014 तक काय कया है . उसके संबंध म द तावेज दश
पी-१ एवं दश पी-2 है जसके अनुसार थम प ने
िनरं तर काय कया है ।"
10. The present attempt in filing this review which is contrary to
the findings recorded by the Labour Court which are based on the
statements of departmental witness and have not been challenged
by the State Government till date, is clearly malicious act on the
part of the concerned authority of the State in denying the well
deserved fruits of the litigation to a litigant who is litigating since
last 11 years.
11. Therefore, this review petition deserves to be and is
dismissed. It is a fit case where cost has to be imposed, therefore,
it is ordered that the applicant shall pay the cost of Rs. 15,000/-
which is to be paid in the account of Adhivakta Parivar Kalyan
Yojna M.P. High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur A/C
519302010206966, within a period of 30 days from this order."
7. In the present case also in para-14 of the impugned award Annexure P-1
the departmental witness has admitted that the petitioner No.1 - Durgesh
Kumar Soni has worked from 2003 till 2014. In similar manner, in the award
Annexure P-2 in para 14 it has been mentioned that the departmental witness
has admitted that petitioner No.2 - Roop Lal Mehra has worked from 2003
till 2014. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
8 WP-34763-2024
judgment passed in W.P. No.6670/2023 as confirmed in W.A.
No.2939/2024.
8. Consequently, the present petition also stands allowed in similar terms.
The petitioners are held entitled to be reinstated in service with 25% back-
wages in terms of para 10 of order passed in W.P. No.6670/2023 which will
apply to the present petitioners mutatis mutandis .
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
