Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P.P.K.V.V. Co.Ltd. vs Balram Ahirwar on 27 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8727 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.P.K.V.V. CO.
LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O AND M
M.P.P.K.V.V.CO.LTD MAKRONIYA SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
DEVENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI LAXMAN
PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OPPOSITE SHIV TYRE SHUKLA GALI SHASTRI
WARD SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 9237 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO.LTD. THR. CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.P.K.V.V.
CO.LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (O & M)
M. P. P. K. V. V. CO. LTD. MAKRONIYA
2
SAGAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
AMAR SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI RAGHURAJ
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
VILL. AND POST J.C. NAGAR TEH. AND
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 14588 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P.P.K.V.V. CO.LTD. THROUGH CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.P.K.V.V.
CO.LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (O AND
M) M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD., MAKRONIYA,
SAGAR, TEH. AND SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
BALRAM AHIRWAR S/O SHRI RAJJU
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SAKIN
GRAM AND POST JAISINAGAR TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 19493 of 2015
3
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M P
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI
YARELAL CHODUHARY, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, BEHIND SANDEEP MEDICAL STORES
BHAGWAN GUNJ WARD SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 19494 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M P
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN,
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA SAGAR (MADHYA
4
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
DEEPCHANDRA ROHIT (CHAMAAR) S/O SHRI
KANCHEDI LAL ROHIT, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, VILLAGE AND POST SIHORA VIKAS
KHAND RAHATGARH TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 19498 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M P
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN,
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI NIRBHAYA
NARAYAN MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST DUNGARIA VIKAS
KHAND JAISINAGAR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 21335 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M P
POORVAKSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER (O AND
M) POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN CO. LTD. MAKRONIYA SAGAR
TAHSIL AND DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
AMIT KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI SHYAM
MANOHAR DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NEAR BUS STAND JARUVAKHEDA DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 21499 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN CO.LTD THROUGH
MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6
2. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
CO. LTD. O AND M CIRCLE,
MAKRONIYA SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. OFFICER INCHARGE OF THE CASE, S.K
KANNOJIYA S/O SHRI C.L KANNOJIYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MPPKVVCL O
AND M DIVISION BANDA DITT. SAGAR
DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
PRAKASH PREMI S/O SHRI DALUA PREMI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AMBEDKAR WARD
BANDA (BELAI) TEH- BANDA DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 2 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD., SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [CIVIL]
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
CO. LTD. MAKRONIYA SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
7
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
UMESH KUMAR KORI S/O SHRI DALCHAND
KORI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
CHANDRASHEKHAR AZAD WARD NEAR
GOVERDHAN KORI SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 3 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COM.LTD. THR. CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COM.LTD. SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (O
AND M) M.P. POORVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA, SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
ABHISHEK CHOUKSEY S/O MAHESH
CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
VILL. AND POST JARUAKHEDA
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 4 of 2016
8
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.
POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN
COMPANY LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
NILESH KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI
RAMAKANT PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, TILAK GANJ WARD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 4412 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. M.P.POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITARAN CO. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF
MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD.
SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERITENDING ENGINEER POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
MAKRONIYA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ASHISH KUMAR PATEL S/O DAMODAR
PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, DAMODAR PRASAD PATEL
RESIDENT OF LINK ROAD SHUKLA
GALI MOTINAGAR WARD DIST. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. By this common order, W.P.No.8727/2015, W.P.No.09237/2015, W.P.No.14588/2015, W.P.No.19493/2015, W.P.No.19494/2015, W.P.No.19498/2015, W.P.No.21335/2015, W.P.No.21499/2015, W.P.No.00002/2016, W.P.No.00003/2016, W.P.No.00004/2016, W.P.No.04412/2016 shall also be decided. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of W.P.No.8727/2015 shall be taken into consideration.
2. W.P.No.8727/2015 has been filed against the order dated. 27.2.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Sagar in Case No.C.O.C.A.36/12 I.D. Act by which the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the respondent with back wages.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the effect that even if the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that termination of service of the respondent was bad on account of non compliance of 10 provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, still instead of directing for reinstatement, should have directed for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the Workman that in fact the petitioner is still in need of labourers and is always advertising and thus it is clear that compensation in lieu of reinstatement may not be granted and the order of reinstatement may be maintained.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:-
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde and others reported in (2017)11 SCC 244 11 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the respondent had merely worked for a period of one year.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 has held as under:-
''19. The following passages from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the question of reinstatement:
(BSNL case, SCC pp. 187-88, paras 29-30) "29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL v. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily-wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2 to 3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
30. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgments, as is clear from the following discussion: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras 2-4) '2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily-wager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 12 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.
3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14) "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed 13 procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.
***
14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily- wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded.
This Court has distinguished between a daily-wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."
4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated:
(SCC p. 777, para 11)
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily-
wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice.'"
14****
21. We make it clear that reference to Umadevi, in the aforesaid discussion is in a situation where the dispute referred pertained to termination alone. Going by the principles carved out above, had it been a case where the issue is limited only to the validity of termination, Appellant 1 would not be entitled to reinstatement...........''
9. The Supreme Court in the case of O.P.Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 337 has held as under :-
"6. Time is now ripe to turn to the next question as to whether it is obligatory to direct reinstatement when the concerned regulation is found to be void. In the sphere of employer- employee relations in public sector undertakings, to which Article 12 of the Constitution of India is attracted, it cannot be posited that reinstatement must invariably follow as a consequence of holding that an order of termination of service of an employee is void. No doubt in regard to "blue collar"
workmen and "white collar" employees other than those belonging to the managerial or similar high level cadre, reinstatement would be a rule, and compensation in lieu thereof a rare exception. Insofar as the high level managerial cadre is concerned, the matter deserves to be viewed from an altogether different perspective
-- a larger perspective which must take into account the demands of National Interest and the resultant compulsion to ensure the success of the public sector in its competitive co-
15existence with the private sector. The public sector can never fulfil its life aim or successfully vie with the private sector if it is not managed by capable and efficient personnel with unimpeachable integrity and the requisite vision, who enjoy the fullest confidence of the "policy-makers" of such undertakings. Then and then only can the public sector undertaking achieve the goals of (1) maximum production for the benefit of the community, (2) social justice for workers, consumers and the people, and (3) reasonable return on the public funds invested in the undertaking.
7. It is in public interest that such undertakings or their Boards of Directors are not compelled and obliged to entrust their managements to personnel in whom, on reasonable grounds, they have no trust or faith and with whom they are in a bona fide manner unable to function harmoniously as a team working arm-in-arm with success in the aforesaid three-dimensional sense as their common goal. These factors have to be taken into account by the court at the time of passing the consequential order, for the court has full discretion in the matter of granting relief, and the court can sculpture the relief to suit the needs of the matter at hand. The court, if satisfied that ends of justice so demand, can certainly direct that the employer shall have the option not to reinstate provided the employer pays reasonable compensation as indicated by the court."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 has held 16 that statutory authorities are obligated to make recruitments only upon compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory recruitment rules, if any, would be void and, under these circumstances, it was held at Workman is entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 575, has held that merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized. At the most, interest of justice will be subserved if payment of sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of damages is made to the Workman.
12. Similar law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta, reported in 2009(16) SCC 562, Senior Superintendent Telegraph Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal, reported in 2010(6) SCC 773, Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Vs. Gitam Singh, reported in 2013(5) SCC 136.
13. So far as the submission that respondents are still in need of labourers and every day they are issuing advertisement is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that there is no such material available on record to give such a finding. Furthermore, the termination of service of the workman was held to be bad on account of non compliance of provision of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
1714. Under these circumstances, considering the period of service rendered by the workman, this Court is of considered opinion that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement would serve the justice.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 27.2.2014 is hereby affirmed so far as the finding with regard to setting aside of termination is concerned. However, the order so far as it relates to reinstatement of workman is concerned, the same is quashed and it is directed that in lieu of reinstatement, the workman would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- payable to him within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which the compensation shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum till actual payment is made.
16. With aforesaid observation, the petitions are finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE HEMANT SARAF 2024.03.11 17:23:33 +05'30' HS