Madhya Pradesh High Court
Conservator Of Forest vs Betul Karyabharit Van Shrimik Sangh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23603
1 WP-4946-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15307 of 2006
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
Versus
BETUL KARYABHARIT VAN SHRIMIK SANGH
Appearance:
Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the petitioner.
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4946 of 2006
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
Versus
BETUL KARYABHARIT VAN SHRIMIK SANGH
Appearance:
Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the petitioner.
Ms. Adwita Parashar - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid petitions i.e. W.P.No.4946/2006 and W.P.No.15307/2006. For the sake of convenience, the facts, as detailed in W.P.No.4946/2006 are being taken note of.
2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petitions reveal that in both the petitions, there is challenge by the petitioner to an award of the Labour Court dated 26.09.2005 contained in Annexure P/1 (W.P.No.4946/2006) and award dated 21.02.2006 contained in Annexure P/1 (W.P.No.15307/2006) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 24-03-2026 18:09:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23603 2 WP-4946-2006 whereby the Labour Court had issued direction for permanent classification of respondents/workmen and there are direction to pay the entire differences of salary after completion of six months from the initial date of their appointments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the Labour Court without appreciating the aspect that there exists no clear vacant post against which the respondents/workmen had worked, had passed the impugned award. The Labour Court was required to appreciate that the back wages were not claimed by the respondents/workmen with retrospective effect. The specific objection taken by the present petitioner/State, which finds mention in paragraph 21 of the impugned award, makes it abundantly clear that there existed no appointment order in favour of the respondents/workmen and their engagement was need-based and was not against any clear vacant post. Yet, the aforesaid aspects have not been dealt with by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award. The Labour Court has ventured upon to grant something which was never ever claimed by the respondents/workmen in their statement of claim which has been brought on record by the respondents/workmen vide Annexure P/2. The counsel for the petitioner/respondent in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Engineer-In-Chief, P.H.E.D. and others vs. Budha Rao Magarde and others reported in 2002 (1) M.P.L.J. 385.
4 . Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Labour Court, after taking into Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 24-03-2026 18:09:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23603 3 WP-4946-2006 consideration the prolonged employment of the respondents/workmen with the employer/petitioner, has passed the impugned award. The factum of tenure of the employment has been taken care of by the Labour Court in paragraph 29 of the impugned award dated 26.09.2005 contained in Annexure P/1 and the Labour Court while dealing with the testimony of the witnesses of the petitioner/employer, who was working as Forest Range Officer in Betul, concluded that the respondents/workmen work for more than 240 days in a calendar year. For a prolonged period, they were employed with the petitioner/employer and therefore, they were entitled to be classified as permanent employees in terms of the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and accordingly, the award was rightly passed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, no interference is warranted.
5. No other point is argued or pressed by the parties.
6. Heard the rival submissions of both parties and perused the record.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that the Labour Court had taken into consideration the factual aspect as regards respondents/workmens' employment with the petitioner. The Labour Court in paragraph 29 of the impugned order dealt with the prolonged engagement of the respondents/workmen with the petitioner/employer. The Labour Court also observed that one of the workman was employed for 31 years with the petitioner/employer, and they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Thus, while dealing with the evidence as well as the testimonies of all the witnesses, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 24-03-2026 18:09:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:23603 4 WP-4946-2006 respondents/workmen were entitled to be classified after completion of six months from the date of their initial appointment and accordingly, has directed to pay the arrears as per their classification from the date i.e. after completion of six months from the date of their initial appointment.
8. The aforesaid findings so arrived at by the Labour Court are not required to be interfered with in absence of any infirmity. Prayer as incorporated in the statement of claim clearly reflects that the respondents/workmen had claimed arrears of salary upon their classification after completion of six months from the date of their initial appointment and accordingly, the reliefs granted are in tune with the relief as prayed for in the claim petition.
9. So far as the reliance on the decision of Budha Rao Magarde (supra) is concerned, in the said case in the statement of claim, there was no prayer by the workmen therein to grant any pecuniary benefit with retrospective effect. However, in the case in hand, no such eventuality exists.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that no interference with the impugned award is warranted. Accordingly, both the petitions i.e. W.P.No.15307/2006 and W.P.No.4946/2006 stand dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 24-03-2026 18:09:03