Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Sanjay Puri vs The Commadant Central Store Department ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780
1 WP-7506-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7506 of 2014
SHRI SANJAY PURI
Versus
THE COMMADANT CENTRAL STORE DEPARTMENT AND
WORKSHOP
Appearance:
Shri Pranay Choubey - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Manish Kumar Chourasiya - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the award dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in CGIT/LC/R/36/2006 whereby the learned Tribunal while holding the action of the respondent in terminating the services of petitioner was illegal and instead of directing reinstatement in service with back wages has directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent establishment w.e.f.13.10.1993. He continued to work on the said post till 03.12.2004 and all of sudden vide order dated 04.12.2004 his services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute against his termination order which was taken into consideration by the competent authority, but as no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties, therefore, the matter was referred to the Central Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 2 WP-7506-2014 Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Jabalpur for adjudication of the dispute. The learned CGIT framed an issue that as to whether the action of the management of Commandant, Central Storage Depot and Workshop, Bhopal in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 04.12.2004 is legal and justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to. The learned CGIT found that the petitioner has continuously worked in the establishment of the respondent for more than 240 days in a calendar year just preceding the date of termination from service considering the fact that the services of the petitioner were continuous within the meaning of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act and finding that no notice or compensation in lieu of the notice was given to the petition prior to dispensing with his services. The learned CGIT arrived at a conclusion that the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the workman is per se illegal. However, instead of directing for reinstatement of services of the petitioner, the Tribunal directed the respondent to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is argued that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent for more than 9 years continuously, therefore, looking to the length of his service the order of grant of compensation should not have been passed. It is submitted that the normal consequence of setting aside of the termination order is reinstatement that should have been ordered by the learned CGIT. Therefore, this petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order of the learned CGIT to the extent of grant of compensation to the petitioner and further to modify the same by directing the respondent to reinstate the services of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 3 WP-7506-2014 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. The State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.565 of 2009, decided on 17.01.2025) and the order of this Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Amit Gautam (Misc. Petition No.4189 of 2021, decided on 25.02.2025). In alternative he has argued that if this Court is not satisfied with the argument regarding reinstatement then the amount of compensation should be enhanced.
3. Counsel appearing for the respondent by filing a detailed reply has supported the impugned award passed by the learned CGIT. It is submitted that in pursuance to the award passed by the learned CGIT the cheque as directed by the learned CGIT amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- has already been prepared. The petitioner was called to collect the cheque. The petitioner has been handed over the amount. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot take a summer salt and ask for reinstatement in service. Even otherwise reinstatement in service cannot be automatic. It is looking to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The engagement of the petitioner in the respondent department is only as a daily rated employee. The learned CGIT found that it will not be appropriate to direct for reinstatement in service of the petitioner, therefore, accordingly directed for grant of compensation. It is argued that the respondent department is not in existence and has already winded up, therefore, at this juncture direction for reinstatement cannot be issued as the department is not in existence. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 4 WP-7506-2014
5. Admittedly, the learned CGIT has found the action of the authority in dispensing with the services of the petitioner to be illegal and contrary to the provisions, however, instead of passing an order for reinstatement has directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The record further indicates that the petitioner's initial engagement in the department was in the year 1993 and his services were dispensed with in the year 2004. Meaning thereby he has rendered more than 10 years in the respondent department.
6. The law with respect to the direction for reinstatement in service is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The Hon'ble 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 Ganaptrao Bobde reported in (2017)11 SCC 244 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the respondent had merely worked for a period of one year.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 5 WP-7506-2014 Food Corporation of India 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 dailywager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 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 procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780
6 WP-7506-2014 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:
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as dailywagers 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."
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 Hon'ble 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 7 WP-7506-2014 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-existence 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. If the settled law in the aforesaid cases is taken note of then it is clear that in each and every case the reinstatement cannot be directed on a regular post. The facts and circumstances of each case are to be considered. If the aforesaid settled legal propositions of law are applied to the case in hand the learned CGIT has rightly arrived at a conclusion directing for reinstatement in service. It is argued before this Court that the respondent department has winded up and not in existence as on date. Under these circumstances, the order for reinstatement of the petitioner cannot be issued but looking to the length of service which the petitioner has rendered in the respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21780 8 WP-7506-2014 department the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be on a lower side. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon by the judgment passed in the case whereby this Court considering the fact of the amount of compensation granted on the lower side has enhanced the amount.
11. As this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has rendered service for more than 10 years in the respondent department coupled with the fact that the CGIT has found the termination to be illegal, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation. The respondent authority is directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in all including the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. If the award passed by the Tribunal is paid to the petitioner then the same be adjusted from the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and balance be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 17-05-2025 10:55:47