Narmada Extrusions Ltd. Through ... vs Anup on 13 February, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

1 MP-840-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 840 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THROUGH PRAKASH
Versus
ANUP
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul Bhutda -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 842 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THROUGH PRAKASH
Versus
PUSHPENDRA
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul
Bhutda - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

MISC. PETITION No. 843 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THROUGH PRAKASH
Versus
BANSHIMANI
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-02-2026
15:13:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

2 MP-840-2018
Bhutda - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

MISC. PETITION No. 844 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THROUGH PRAKASH
Versus
LALMANI
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul
Bhutda - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

MISC. PETITION No. 907 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THR. PRAKASH
Versus
SANJAY
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul
Bhutda - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

MISC. PETITION No. 908 of 2018
NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LTD. THR. PRAKASH
Versus
RAMAKANT DWIVEDI
Appearance:
Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Mukul
Bhutda - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-02-2026
15:13:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

3 MP-840-2018

ORDER

Having regards to similitude in the controversy involved in these petitions, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Case Nos.40/I.D.Ref./2015, 39/I.D.Ref./2015, 108/I.D.Ref./2015, 41/I.D.Ref./2015, 44/I.D.Ref./2015 and 42/I.D.Ref./2015.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondents were employed in the petitioner/Company on the post of Loom Operators and were terminated by the petitioner/Company by oral order as per the details given below:-

                                                               date of       date of termination by
                                 Name           Post
                                                              appointment   oral order
                                 Anup Patel     Loom Operator 10.01.2008     09.02.2015
                                 Puspendra      Loom Operator 01.05.2008    08.02.2015
                                 Banshimani     Loom Operator 01.01.2009    15.04.2015
                                 Lalmani        Loom Operator 03.03.2005    31.01.2015
                                 Sanjay Patel   Loom Operator 08.01.2003    22.02.2015
                                 Ramakant
                                                Loom Operator 20.10.2004    28.11.2014
                                 Dwivedi

4. Dispute was raised before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Indore who referred the case under Sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for adjudication before the Labour Court. In the Labour Court statement of claim was filed by the respondents alleging that they were paid wages even below the minimum wages and P.F. and ESI contribution was deducted but was not being deposited, no identity cards were issued and they were forced to do over time work and bonus were also not given. Respondents in each calendar year has worked for more than 240 days. When these matters were complained against, the petitioner entertained grudge against the respondents and thereafter services of the respondents were terminated by oral order without complying the provisions of the Act.

5. The petitioner filed the response in five cases with specific

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

4 MP-840-2018 objections that respondents were never appointed as loom operators and therefore it was not required to given any notice before termination of their services and hence compliance of Section 15B of the Act was not required and false claim has been raised and therefore prayed for dismissal of the reference.

6. Learned Labour Court after leading evidence and also upon hearing the parties passed impugned award in favour of the respondents holding that retrenchment of the respondents is declared illegal and therefore petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondents with full back wages. These awards are under challenge before this Court by way of these miscellaneous petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Company submits that respondents were not in services of the petitioner/Company. The employer and employee relationship has not been established. Only oral evidence has been led before the Labour Court by way of affidavits. No documentary evidence has been filed to prove that respondents were in services of the petitioner/Company, therefore no question of oral termination comes into play. The whole story of the respondents is concocted, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief and prays for allowing the petitions and setting aside the impugned award passed in favour of the respondents. To buttress his submissions he has placed reliance on the paras 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of writ petitions lead case being W.P.No.3263/2014 (Indore Nagar Palika Nigam, Indore Vs. Mukesh S/o Bherulal Prajapat). He has further placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari (2005) 10 SCC 792, para 11 of the case of Batala Coop.Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC 481, paras 6,7 and 8 of the case of Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558, para 31 of the case of Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd. and another (1979) 3 SCC 371 and also the judgment in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop.MKT.Society Limted Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2004) 3 SCC 514.

8 . Per contra learned counsel for the respondents supporting the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

5 MP-840-2018 employees case submits that respondents in their statements specifically stated that they were employees in the petitioner/Company and they were retrenched by oral order without following the beneficial provisions of the Act. He also invites attention of this Court towards that order dated 03.08.2018 wherein it has been observed that petitioner is ready to reinstate the respondents therefore, respondents who were not employed gainfully were directed to report their joining on 09.08.2018 to the petitioner/Company with documents Aadhar card and details of their bank account to the employer and on submissions of these documents, petitioner will take the respondents in service. He further submits that mere assertion of denial of relationship of employer and employee between petitioner/Company and the respondents is not sufficient and despite directions, the petitioner/Company has not filed any documents to buttress his submissions. Respondents have placed evidence as was available with them as they could have done in form of their statements.

8.1 Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court towards paras 7 and 8 of the impugned award wherein the contentions of both the parties including the documents have been considered and adverse inference has been drawn against the petitioner. On these miscellaneous contentions prays for dismissing the petitions with direction to the petitioner/Company to reinstate the respondents in the Company with full back wages.

9. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. From perusal of the statements of the respondents it is apparent that they have specifically deposed on affidavits that they were employees in the petitioner/Company and their services have been terminated by oral orders without complying with the provisions of the Act and thereafter they have become unemployed. It has also been stated in the affidavits they worked during their service in each year 240 days and they were not served any notice. No prior approval was taken from the State Government for retrenchment of the respondents.

10.1 From perusal of their statements and on perusal of the record, it is also apparent that statements of the respondents were intact even in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

6 MP-840-2018 cross examination. Therefore, learned Labour Court has rightly relied upon their statements. Mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The petitioner has taken a defence that respondents were not employed in the Company, but no evidence has been led before the Labour Court. Only photo copies of the attendance register from year 2012 to 2015-2016 have been filed after conclusion of the evidence and after arguments were heard. It has also been observed by the Labour Court that these attendance register has not been properly proved by the petitioner. It has also been observed that it appears that the attendance register has been forged after conclusion of the trial. Similar observations have been made by the Labour Court with regard to bonus register. Respondents requested for requisitioning the attendance register, salary register, log book, daily inspection report, bonus register, daily attendance shift schedule and cash book, but despite the directions of the Court, petitioner/Company has not produced the aforesaid documents before the Labour Court at appropriate stage therefore, adverse inference under S.114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 18 has rightly been drawn against the petitioner.

11. From perusal of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that these judgments are of no help to the petitioner as whatever the respondents/employees could have done, has been done by them by tendering their statements on affidavits whereon they have subjected to cross examination and nothing adverse could be culled out.

12. In the case of Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills (Supra) material brought on record clearly established that engagement of workman was for a specific period and for specific work, but the same is not the case here in the instant case, wherein defence of the petitioner is that the respondents/workmen were not employed in the Company.

13. The case of Shankar Chakravarti (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner is also in different context wherein the Apex Court has held that it would not be open to to decide the lis on any extraneous considerations. Justice, equity and good conscience will inform its adjudication. Relevant para para 31 runs as under:-

"31. Rule 15 confers power to admit or call for evidence. Rule

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

7 MP-840-2018 16 enables the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to administer oath. Rule 60 prescribes the form of application to be made under Section 33. The application has to be in Form J or K, as the case may be, and has to be on verification. The cause-title in the prescribed form requires that the applicant and the opposite party should be specifically described in the application. These forms are more or less analogous to a plaint in a suit and the reply to be filed would take more or less the form of a written statement. Where the parties are at variance for facility of disposal issues will have to be framed. It is open to it to frame an issue and dispose it of as a preliminary issue as held in M/s.Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd Vs.Its Workmen 1970 Lab IC 350: ILR (1969) 2 Punj 7 (P & H HC). Parties have to lead evidence. Section 11C confers power of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure on the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in respect of matters therein specified.

The Labour Court or Tribunal would then; proceed to decide the lis between the parties. lt has to decide the lis on the evidence adduced before it. While it may not be hide bound by the rules prescribed in the Evidence Act it is nontheless a quasi-judicial Tribunal proceeding to adjudicate upon a lis between the parties arrayed before it and must decide the matter on the evidence produced by the parties before it. lt would not be open to it to decide the lis on any extraneous considerations. Justice, equity and good conscience will inform its adjudication. Therefore, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court."

14. Initial burden of proof was definitely on the respondents which have been discharged by way of their oral evidence. Therefore, judgment in the case of Anil Rishi (Supra) is also of no help to the petitioner.

15. In the case of Bank of Baroda (Supra) the Apex Court in para 8 has again detailed on the point of burden of proof as under:-

"8. While there is no doubt in law that the burden of proof that a claimant was in the employment of a Management, primarily lies on the workman who claims to be a workman. The degree of such proof so required, would vary from case to case. In the instant case, the workman has established the fact which, of course, has not been denied by the bank, that he did work as a driver of the car belonging to the bank during the relevant period which comes to more than 240 days of work. He has produced 3 vouchers which showed that he had been paid certain sums of money towards his

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4644

8 MP-840-2018 wages and the said amount has been debited to the account of the bank. As against this, as found by the fora below, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the bank to rebut even this piece of evidence produced by the workman. It remained contented by filing a written statement wherein it denied the claim of the workman and took up a plea that the employment of such drivers was under a scheme by which they are, in reality, the employee of the Executive concerned and not that of the bank; none was examined to prove the scheme. No evidence was led to establish that the vouchers produced by the workman were either not genuine or did not pertain to the wages paid to the workman. No explanation by way of evidence was produced to show for what purpose the workman's signatures were taken in the Register maintained by the bank. In this factual background, the question of workman further proving his case does not arise because there was no challenge at all to his evidence by way of rebuttal by the bank."

In the instant case, as mentioned herein above burden has been discharged by the respondents by way of their oral testimony.

16. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Labour Court in passing the impugned award. Hence, these petitions, devoid of substance fail and are hereby dismissed. The directions contained in award be complied with within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Copy of order of this court be kept in file of each Miscellanaeous Petition. No order as to costs.

CC as per rules.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE