[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The President vs Chaitanya Tiwari on 25 March, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

1 MP-6127-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6576 of 2024
CHAITANYA TIWARI
Versus
ADHYAKSH MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 6127 of 2024
THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS
Versus
CHAITANYA TIWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri Swapnil Khare and Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Respondents/Caveator.

MISC. PETITION No. 6128 of 2024
THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIV KUMAR VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri Swapnil Khare and Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Respondents/Caveator.

MISC. PETITION No. 6578 of 2024
ANUPAM SHRIVAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 4/2/2026
1:40:52 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

2 MP-6127-2024
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

MISC. PETITION No. 6579 of 2024
DEEPAK SHARMA
Versus
ADHYAKSH MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 6933 of 2024
GULSAN KHANGAR
Versus
MP WARE HOUSING CORPORATION AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava Rumy - Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

MISC. PETITION No. 6934 of 2024
DINESH TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

MISC. PETITION No. 7084 of 2024
GHANSHYAM KAHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 4/2/2026
1:40:52 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

3 MP-6127-2024
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 7.

MISC. PETITION No. 7085 of 2024
PREM KUMAR BARAGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri T.R. Pillai - Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.

Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7198 of 2024
SUBODH CHANPURIYA
Versus
ADHYAKSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7200 of 2024
DEEPAK TIWARI
Versus
ADHYAKSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7209 of 2024
SANJAY VERMA
Versus
ADHYAKSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 4/2/2026
1:40:52 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

4 MP-6127-2024
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7210 of 2024
YASHWANT VERMA
Versus
ADHYAKSH MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC
CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7213 of 2024
KAMLESH SINGH GOND
Versus
ADHYAKSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
Shri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7219 of 2024
AJAY SHRIWAS
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7220 of 2024
DEVENDRA RAI
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 4/2/2026
1:40:52 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

5 MP-6127-2024
MISC. PETITION No. 7221 of 2024
KAMAL SINGH
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7222 of 2024
NIRANJAN CHOUDHARY
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7226 of 2024
SHIV KUMAR VISHWAKARMA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH WAREHOUSINGH AND LOGISTIC CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

MISC. PETITION No. 7242 of 2024
KAMAL VERMA
Versus
ADHYAKSH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Khare with Shri Ashok Shrivastava- Advocates for the Petitioner.
S
hri Praveen Dubey - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 6.

ORDER

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

6 MP-6127-2024 Since all these Petitions arise out of identical awards passed by the Labour Court on the same date in relation to same Employer and by the employees having similar grievance against the employer, therefore, all these Petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common Order.

2. M.P.No.6127/2024 and M.P.No.6128/2024 have been filed by the Employer being aggrieved by the award to the extent of reinstatement of services of the workmen. All other Petitions are filed by the workmen who are aggrieved by denial of backwages to them and these petitions are therefore filed in the matter of claim to backwages.

3. Learned counsel for the Employer has vehemently argued that the Employer is M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and the workmen herein had worked from about 2010 to about 2022 and they were working on collector rates as Daily rated workers. During the year 2022, the Corporation had not dispensed with their services, nor had retrenched their services but a policy had been framed by the Corporation for outsourcing of such casual workers and the Workmen were only expected to be engaged through the outsourcing agencies and there was no other adverse change of service conditions of the Workmen. It is argued that neither the salary was reduced, nor the nature of work was to be changed and the Workmen who were earlier working directly under the Corporation as daily rated workers were now to work through a outsourcing agency because as a policy, the Corporation had decided to outsource the works of casual nature like loaders, labourers, watchmen, etc. The workmen in the present

cases have been working as loaders, labourers, watchman, etc. and as per the policy dated 14.09.2022, such type of works have been decided to be outsourced through outsourcing agency who will provide manpower. It is argued that it is not

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

7 MP-6127-2024 the case of outsourcing of process, but supply of manpower through outsourcing.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Workmen had contended that the aforesaid act of the Corporation in changing the nature of employment after 12 years of service amounts to illegal change in service conditions and as per Section 2 (g) of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970, the Corporation would be the Principal employer and the methodology of making the Petitioners work through outsourcing agency in place of direct engagement of casual labour is only with a view to adversely affect the chances of regularization of the Petitioners, and for no other purpose. It is argued that though the petitioners are casual workers but they were having a right to be considered for being given the status of Sthai karmis and once the Petitioners had got the right to be considered for status of Sthai karmis then only for denial of that status, the methodology has been changed from that of casual workers on daily rated directly under the corporation, to engagement through outsourcing agencies.

5. Learned counsel for the workmen has also argued that since in the present case, the illegal retrenchment has taken on account of and for the reason of illegal methodology being adopted by the Corporation and it is a situation created by the Corporation, therefore the workmen were entitled to backwages but the Labour Court in utter disregard to settled principles of law has also denied backwages and the denial of backwages is not based on any such settled principles on which backwages could have been denied by the Labour Court. Therefore, vehement prayer is made to award appropriate backwages also.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and perused the record.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

8 MP-6127-2024

7. The Labour Court in the present case has passed award of reinstatement without backwages and these are Petitions by the workmen on one side claiming backwages, and by the Employer on the other side challenging the reinstatement part.

8. As per the statement of claim of the Workmen before the Labour Court, they had prayed that the termination of services on 01.12.2022 may be declared illegal and they be reinstated again in service on the same post of chowkidar, etc. with backwages. There was no relief of declaration of status as permanent employee, but only the retrenchment was under challenge.

9. It is not a case of outright retrenchment or dispensation of services. It is a case where the Employer had come up before the Labour Court contending that the Workmen in the present case are backdoor appointees appointed without following up any recruitment process and they are casual workers having no lien to the post. Therefore, the corporation has decided to streamline the process of such engagement and with a view to streamline such process, it has been decided to engage workmen carrying out these processes as chowkidar, etc. through outsourcing agencies. It was contended by the Employer/Corporation that the workmen would be employed through outsourcing agencies also and they will also be entitled to Employees Provident Fund Contribution, so also coverage under the Employees State Insurance Corporation Scheme. The counsel for rival parties had not disputed that though various employees have opted to be engaged through service providers but various other employees approached the Labour Court. The employees who approached the Labour Court are also having option to get themselves engaged through outsourcing agencies, but they chose not to be engaged through outsourcing agencies and have been litigating.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

9 MP-6127-2024

10. Even in reply to application under Section 17-B It has been categorically mentioned by the Employer that the Employer is willing to take work from the Workmen and they have been asked to join through the outsourcing agencies but they are disinclined to join through the outsourcing agency. Therefore, it is not the case where there is a patent violation of provisions of Section 17-B but even at the stage of compliance of Section 17-B, the Employer has shown willingness to take work from the Workmen but the workmen had been showing disinclination to join through the outsourcing agencies. Therefore, looking to this dispute in the matter of compliance of Section 17-B, this Court does not find that there has been an outright violation of Section 17-B so as to dismiss these petitions on the ground of non compliance of Section 17-B. This Court has therefore to consider the issue as to whether the service of the Petitioner having been converted from directly engaged casual employee on daily rates, to an outsource employee was lawful or otherwise.

11. Termination has been defined under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act as under:-

2[(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include--

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or 3[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-

renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

10 MP-6127-2024 health;]

For retrenchment to come into operation, the necessary ingredient is termination of services by the Employer of the services of the workman. In the present case, the Employer has been continuously projecting before the Labour Court as well as before this court that the employer is willing to take work from the Workmen but through outsourcing agency. It is the workmen who are unwilling to work through the outsourcing agency. Therefore, the workmen getting out of employment on account of their own refusal, it does not amount to retrenchment because the Employer has always shown its willingness to take work from the Workmen but through outsourcing agency.

12. Now it is required to be seen that whether it amounts to illegal Labour practice, as it may adversely affect the chances of the workmen to get benefit sthai karmis as per policy of the State Government dated 07.10.2016.

13. Similar issues in relation to Workmen appointed directly on contract basis/daily rated basis and then asked to work through an outsourcing agency have been considered time and again by this Court in a number of judgments. In W.P.No.11482/2020 (Hariom & Others Vs. State of M.P. and others) , the coordinate bench had dismissed the petitions of casual employees of National Health Mission holding there there is no right of regularization, nor any constitutional or statutory right to work under the National Health Mission.

14. In W.P.No.22341/2019 (Babulal Vs. Public Health and Family Welfare Department), a coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore has considered the judgment of Hariom (supra) and has taken the same view, holding that as and when regular recruitments are carried out, then the employees may claim benefit

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

11 MP-6127-2024 of separate reservation for them in regular recruitment, but they cannot object to being asked to work through an outsourcing agency.

15. In similar terms, another coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.26657/2019 (Trilokchand Vs. Public Health and Family Welfare Department) has followed the aforesaid judgment in case of Babulal and dismissed the identical set of Petitions.

16. However, later another coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.11632/2020 (Darvari Singh Sareyam Vs. State of M.P. & Another) has considered the judgment in the case of Hariom (supra) and partly distinguished the said judgment and held that there cannot be any deduction of wages and though the system of taking work through outsourcing agency was upheld holding that it is only an administrative arrangement whereby some other agency has been given task of rendering subsidiary services but ultimately in the matter of protection of salary, the following directions were passed by the Co-ordinate Bench:-

13. Thus, in view of the said facts, which could not be disputed by Shri Satyam Agrawal, there cannot be any reduction of wages on delegation of work to Rogi Kalyan Samiti or sub delegation of work to a contractor and, therefore, respondents have failed to make out a case for reduction of wages for doing the same nature of work for the same duration in the hands of a delegatee or a sub delegatee and, thus, the submission put forth by the respondents that they are entitled to negotiate the wages again, is not made out. They may be in a position to negotiate the wages through Rogi Kalyan Samiti or the contractor only for those who were not engaged earlier by the National Health Mission i.e. a new set of employees who may be engaged by Rogi Kalyan Samiti or the contractor. But as far as those set of employees who were already engaged by the National Health Mission is concerned, there cannot be any reduction of wages.

Therefore, second issue needs to be answered in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, this bunch of petitions is disposed of with the following directions:-

1. Petitioners who were engaged by National Health Mission on a

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

12 MP-6127-2024 certain set of wages for doing a particular set of work, during the continuance of that set of work will be entitled to the same payment of wages or the revised wages, as may be revised by the Co lector from time to time for such contractual employees, as was fixed by the National Health Mission.

2. As far as change of the employer is concerned, petitioners will not raise any objection as long as their conditions of service for contract, except for change of the employer, is not altered any further.

3. As far as reduction in wages is concerned, that has since been held to be illegal, petitioners who are engaged through National Health Mission, will be entitled to get the same wages as were contracted by them with National Health Mission and, if any deduction was made, then the residual amount of deduction be paid to the petitioners within a period of 30 days of receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.

4. Petitioners shall not raise any objection to the change of the employer that being Rogi Kalyan Samiti or a contractor in terms of the aforesaid discussion.

5. As far as decision of a coordinate Bench of this High Court at Gwalior in case of Hariom (supra) is concerned, issue therein was different.

There petitioners were claiming regularization and, therefore, discussion was made having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the present case, petitioners are aware of the fact that they being contractual employees are not entitled to any regularization and that being not a prayer, which is specified by the learned counsels for the petitioners who are appearing herein, facts of that case are different.

17. The aforesaid judgment of the co-ordinate was then put to test before

the Division Bench and the Division Bench considering all the judgments has confirmed the aforesaid judgment in W.A.No.898/2024 (Darvari Singh Sareyam Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 02.04.2025.

18. This Court does not see any good reason to take any different view. This Court has already held above,that the arrangement to convert the service from direct daily rated worker to that of outsourced casual worker does not

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

13 MP-6127-2024 amount to illegal retrenchment.

19. However, it cannot be forgotten by this Court that it is settled in law and has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of cases,that one set of adhoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc employees as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta Vs. Jan Bhagidari Samiti reported in (2022) 15 SCC 540and also in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292.

20. In the case of Manish Gupta(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

13. A perusal of the advertisement dated 24-6-2016 issued by the Principal, Government Kamla Raja Girls Post Graduate Autonomous College, Gwalior, which is at Annexure P-2 of the appeal paper book and the advertisement dated 2-7-2016 issued by the Principal, SMS Government Model Science College, Gwalior, M.P., which is at Annexure P-3 of the appeal paper book, would show that the appointments were to be made after the candidates had gone through due selection procedure. Though Shri Nataraj, learned ASG has strenuously urged that the appointments of the appellants were as guest lecturers and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the advertisements, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the judgment of this Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana [Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 938] and on the order of this Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 618] .

14. In that view of the matter, we do not find that an error was committed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by directing the writ petitioners to continue to work on their respective posts till regular selections are made.

We, however, find that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the writ petitioners would be entitled to get the salary in accordance with the UGC circular is not sustainable. The advertisements themselves clearly provided that the selected candidates would be paid the honorarium to be determined by the said Committee.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

14 MP-6127-2024

15. We are informed at the Bar that the appellants are being paid on a per hour basis i.e. at the rate of Rs 1000 per hour and they are continuing to work in pursuance of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 28-4-2017 [Ramveer Singh Gurjar v. Jan Bhagidari Samiti, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2106] . We also find substance with the submission made on behalf of the respondent State that continuation of the appellants would depend on the number of students offering themselves for the courses concerned.

16. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to partly allow the present appeals. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

16.1. The appeals are partly allowed.

16.2. The impugned judgment and order dated 8-2-2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh Gurjar [State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh Gurjar, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1606] along with companion matters is quashed and set aside.

16.3. The judgment and order dated 29-9-2016 [Ramveer Singh Gurjar v. State of M.P., 2016 SCC OnLine MP 12217] passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is modified as under:

(i) The writ petitioners -- appellants herein would be entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by regularly selected candidates;

(ii) The writ petitioners -- appellants herein would be continued on their respective posts provided that a sufficient number of students are available for the particular course(s) for which the writ petitioners -- appellants herein are appointed.

(iii) The writ petitioners -- appellants herein would be entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs 1000 per hour as is being paid to them presently.

21. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Manish Gupta(supra), it is clear that the Petitioners though could be asked to work under the outsourcing agencies but their services cannot be dispensed with and they are entitled to continue in service through outsourcing agencies and also entitled to protection of salaryand protection of any upgradation of status in the matter of payment of salary to which they were entitled up to the date when the policy to engage workmen through outsourcing agencies was floated i.e, on 14.09.2022.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

15 MP-6127-2024

22. So far as the backwages part is concerned, this Court is not inclined to award backwages and does not intend to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court to the extent of backwages because the employer has not denied to take work from the Workmen but has only asked them to work through outsourcing agency, which they have willingly not worked and therefore it being a case of willfully not working under the outsourcing agencies and not earning salaries, the employer cannot be put to adversity by awarding backwages.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award is modified as under:-

a. The Petitioners who were engaged by the Employer/Corporation on a certain set of wages for doing a particular set of work would be entitled to the same payment of wages or revised wages as may be revised by the Collector from time to time for such daily rated employees.

b. If the Corporation had adopted the policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the State Government, then the cases of the workmen shall be considered under the said policy as on 14.09.2022 and if as on 14.09.2022, they are found entitled to get status of sthai karmi then the workmen will get their salaries as per their status with increments from time to time as applicable to sthai karmis while working under the outsourcing agencies.

c. The wages of the Workmen shall not be reduced in any condition or whatsoever.

d. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Gupta (supra) , the services of the Workmen shall not be dispensed with unless (i) they are replaced by regular employees or (ii) there is paucity of work in the Corporation, or (iii) they are

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26018

16 MP-6127-2024 found guilty of grave and major misconduct. In other words, they shall not be replaced by any other set of outsourced employees if the requirement of work exists and they have not indulged in any major misconduct or mal practices, and no regular recruitment takes place.

e. For the entire period since arising of the dispute in the year 2022 till their joining through outsourcing agencies in terms of this order, the period shall be continuity of service for all other purposes, except payment of actual salary.

24. In the above terms, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is modified and the Petitioners are set at liberty to join their duties with the outsourcing agency and they would get salaries from the date of their joining.

25. In terms of the aforesaid, all the Petitions are disposed off.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

veni