Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashok Rathore on 1 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863
1 RP-734-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 734 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK RATHORE
Appearance:
Shri Shailendra Singh Kushwah - Government Advocate for the
petitioners/State.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present review petition has been filed by the State seeking review/recall of the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 20836 of 2023, whereby this Court directed the Collector, District Gwalior to execute the pending Recovery Certificate (RRC) issued by the Labour Court by invoking the provisions of Section 108 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960.
Learned Government Advocate for the petitioners/State, while inviting the attention of this Hon'ble Court to Section 1-A of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, has submitted that by virtue of the amendment introduced through M.P. Act No. 16 of 2000, the applicability of the said Act stands excluded in respect of such industries or undertakings to which the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies, as may be notified by the State Government.
It is further contended that in the present case, the order dated 23.06.2022 was passed subsequent to the aforesaid amendment, and therefore, the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 were not applicable to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863 2 RP-734-2024 establishment in question. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under the said Act, including the issuance of the Recovery Certificate (RRC) by the learned Labour Court, are without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, this Hon'ble Court did not take into consideration the statutory exclusion brought about by the amendment, which has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be reviewed and recalled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/State further submits that the respondent is not left remediless, as an efficacious statutory remedy is available under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for enforcement of any award or claim. In view of the availability of such alternative remedy, the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court for execution of the Recovery Certificate cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to review and recall the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 20836 of 2023, in the interest of justice.
Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in D. Swamy Joshua v. State of Telangana, decided on 25.01.2022, has contended that once a right has accrued to a party under the unamended provisions of law, the same cannot be taken away unless there is an express provision providing for retrospective applicability of the amendment.
It is further submitted that in the present case, the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 is prospective in nature and does not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the same would not be applicable to proceedings which were already pending at the time of the amendment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863 3 RP-734-2024 Learned counsel further contended that execution proceedings are merely a continuation of the original proceedings. Hence, any amendment introduced subsequently cannot curtail or defeat rights which had already accrued to the respondent under the unamended provisions.
On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the present review petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Prior to the amendment introduced in the year 2000, the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 were applicable to such industries or undertakings wherein the number of employees, on any day during the twelve months preceding the date of notification or thereafter, exceeded the number as specified by the State Government. The Act, at that point, was applicable to all such industries, including those carried on by or under the control of the State Government, except those specifically excluded by notification.
However, by virtue of the amendment introduced through M.P. Act No. 16 of 2000, Section 1-A was inserted, which reads as under:
"1-A. Act shall not apply to such industry- The provision contained in this Act shall not apply to an industry being carried on by or under the control of the State Government;
Provided that the State Government may, by notification, direct that provisions contained in this Act shall apply to such industry being earned on by or underthe control of the State Government, as may be specified in the notification."
With the advent of the aforesaid provision, the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 stood excluded in respect of industries Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863 4 RP-734-2024 being carried on by or under the control of the State Government, except to the extent specifically notified.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the employer of Respondent is the Water Resources Department, which is an establishment under the direct control of the State Government. Therefore, the amendment brought about in the year 2000, by insertion of Section 1-A, squarely applies to it with full force.
In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that, with effect from the year 2000, no industrial dispute could be raised by an employee of such Government-controlled industry under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Consequently, any proceedings initiated thereunder, including execution proceedings, would not be maintainable.
However, the aforesaid conclusion does not render the respondent remediless. The execution or recovery of money arising out of an award passed by the Labour Court can be sought under the provisions of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The relevant extract of Section 33-C(1) is reproduced hereinabelow:-
"33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.- (1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863
5 RP-734-2024 shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue:
Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer:
Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period."
A perusal of the said provision makes it clear that an application for recovery of money due from an employer is required to be made before the appropriate Government, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which, upon being satisfied, may issue a recovery certificate to the Collector for realization of the amount as arrears of land revenue.
So far as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts and even law and is not applicable to the present case. In the instant matter, no vested right of the respondent has been taken away; rather, only the forum for enforcement/execution of such right stands altered in view of the statutory amendment.
In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that while passing the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 in Writ Petition No. 20836 of 2023, the effect of the statutory exclusion brought about by insertion of Section 1-A was not taken into consideration. This omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10863
6 RP-734-2024 record.
Accordingly, the order dated 28.08.2023 is hereby recalled, and the Writ Petition No.20836 of 2023 is restored to its original number.
Let the matter be listed for hearing as per the roster.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 4/6/2026 6:12:42 PM