Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685
1 WP-731-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 731 of 2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Shishupal Singh Gurjar - Panel Lawyer for petitioners/State.
Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for respondent.
Reserved on : 12/11/2025
Delivered on : 27/11/2025
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. The instant writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer-Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in Case No.17/A/MPIR/2012, whereby the application under Section 108 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPIR Act, 1960'), has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to pay arrears of wages to the respondent to the tune of Rs.4,40,492.50/-.
3. The petition further challenges the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Industrial Court Bench at Gwalior, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 18.12.2012 was dismissed. The petition Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 2 WP-731-2015 further challenges the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the Industrial Court, Gwalior, whereby the application seeking a review of the order dated 22.11.2013 was rejected.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:
4.1. The respondent was engaged as a Helper in the fold of the petitioners, as a daily wager. By an oral order, with effect from 01.08.1996, the services of the respondent were dispensed with. The termination of service was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court, Gwalior, in Case No.297/96 (MPIR) which came to be allowed vide award dated 31.12.1998 and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the award dated 31.12.1998 before the Industrial Court, the Industrial Court passed an order dated 04.10.2004, whereby though the order of reinstatement was maintained but the payment of back wages was modified to the extent of 50%.
Subsequently, the Petitioner instituted Writ Petition No.3295/2006 (S) before this Court, titled State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Santosh Kumar & Ors., assailing the Labour Court's award of reinstatement dated 31.12.1998 and the consequential appellate order of the Industrial Court dated 04.10.2004. The writ petition was finally decided on 05.08.2010, whereby the challenge to both the award of reinstatement and the subsequent appellate order was dismissed, and the impugned orders were accordingly affirmed.
4.2. Since the award of reinstatement and back wages was not complied with by the petitioners, and the respondent was not permitted to join, he moved an application under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960, seeking Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 3 WP-731-2015 arrears of back wages with effect from 1.08.1996 till the date of order of reinstatement, i.e., 31.12.1998, at the rate of 50%, amounting to Rs.23,929.50/- and thereafter wages with effect from 1.1.1999 to 3.7.2009, amounting to Rs.3,16,931/-, and for period with effect from 3.7.2009 to December 2011, amounting to Rs.99,632/-, totaling Rs.4,40,492.50/-.
4.3. The aforesaid application filed by the respondent came to be allowed by the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 18.12.2012. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order was rejected by the Industrial Court vide order dated 22.11.2013. An application seeking review of the said order was also rejected by the Industrial Court vide order dated 20.08.2014. These orders are under challenge in the instant writ petition.
5 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Labour Court allowing application filed by the respondent under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960, is without jurisdiction. At the best, the Labour Court could have allowed the application only to the extent of 50% of back wages for the period with effect from 01.08.1996 to 31.12.1998, but the claim of the respondent for wages with effect from 01.01.1999 upto December 2011 could not have been granted, as the same was not covered by the initial award of reinstatement dated 31.12.1998. He further submits that Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960, is in the nature of recovery proceedings for pre-adjudicated claim. In the award of reinstatement, the claim for subsequent wages was not covered and, therefore, could not have been granted. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/State further submits that the respondent joined his services only Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 4 WP-731-2015 in July 2012 and was also paid last wages drawn in accordance with Section 65 (3) of the MPIR Act, 1960 while the proceedings were pending before this Court in W.P. No. 3295/2006 (S) from 04.06.2009 to 31.12.2011. Accordingly, any wages granted beyond the same is not in accordance with law as the same was not covered in the initial award of reinstatement. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves to be allowed and the orders impugned deserve to be quashed.
6 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claim for subsequent wages, in the event of non-compliance of the award of reinstatement being mathematical computation and can very well be granted under the proceedings under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960. The respondent established his claim of tendering his joining before the petitioners in compliance of the award of reinstatement by leading cogent evidence. The petitioners herein, inspite of granted ample opportunities, neither controverted the evidence adduced by the respondent nor led any evidence to oppose the claim of the respondent. The Labour Court has, therefore, rightly passed the award dated 18.12.2012 on the basis of evidence available on record. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, that the claim for subsequent wages, not being part of the award of reinstatement dated 31.12.1998, could not have been granted in proceedings under Section 108 of MPIR Act, 1960, is taken for consideration. Section 108 of MPIR Act, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 5 WP-731-2015 1960 read as under :
"108. Recovery of amount due under the Act. - The amount of any fine imposed, any costs or back wages awarded or any compensation or subsistence allowance directed to be paid by any court under the Act shall be recoverable by the Labour Court in the manner provided for recovery of fines under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No.2 of 1974), as if it were a Criminal Court."
1 0 . T h e Division Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Chamunda Standard Mills, Balagarh, Dewas vs. Ravindra , decided on 01.12.2010 in W.P.No.6352/2010, has held that Section 108 of the MPIR Act is of the nature of execution, and under this provision, the amount may be realised in the same manner as a fine is realised under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant paragraph of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Chamunda Standard Mills (supra) reads as under:
"6. Indeed, the proceedings under Section 108 of the Act which pertains to the execution was filed by the employee against the petitioner in which he lost and, therefore, he filed an application under Section 67 of the Act before learned Industrial Court, which has been allowed. On bare perusal of Section 108 of the Act we find that its nature is that of execution and according, to this provision the amount may be realised in the same manner as the fine is realised under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure."
11. Thus, in view of the above preposition of law, the contentions advanced on behalf of the State, being contrary to the settled law, are hereby rejected.
12. The record indicates that the respondent has been reinstated by the petitioners in July 2012 after the dismissal of its writ petition by this Court on 05.08.2010 in W.P. No.3295/2006 (S). Therefore, the factum of not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 6 WP-731-2015 allowing joining to the respondent pursuant to the award of reinstatement stood established before the Labour Court. In terms of the award dated 31.12.1998, the respondent was entitled to 50 % back wages from the date of termination till the date of award of reinstatement. It was the petitioners who obtained stay order against the award of reinstatement before this Court on 12.07.2006 in W.P. No. 3295/2006 (S). The said stay order ultimately came to be terminated on 05.08.2010 when this Court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages attained finality. It is also not the case of the petitioners before the Labour Court that the respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere from 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2011. Accordingly, the respondent was entitled for 50% of back wages from the date of his termination to the date of award of reinstatement and thereafter, for wages from the date of award of reinstatement to the date of actual reinstatement after adjusting/deducting the amount already paid under Section 65 (3) of MPIR Act. The calculation sheets submitted by the respondent before the Labour Court reflects the said adjustments.
13. That apart, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be sparingly exercised, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil , (2010) 8 SCC 329. If the view taken by the Court/Tribunal is a probable view, the same is not required to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30685 7 WP-731-2015 view of the above discussion and considerations, no case for interference is made out. The petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
14. No orders as to costs.
15. The records of Labour Court be sent back.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE AK/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 27-11-2025 17:02:57