Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rosy Blue India Pvt Ltd vs Mukesh Mahajan on 3 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16546
1 MP-1751-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1751 of 2025
ROSY BLUE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
MUKESH MAHAJAN S/O BASANTRAOJI MAHAJAN
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Petitioner by Mr. Girish S. Patwardhan - Learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Kirti Patwardhan - Advocate.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Heard on the question of admission.
This is a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P/12) passed by Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal, Indore (MP) as well as order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Labour Court, Dhar (MP) under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, whereby a direction has been given to pay 50% of back wages along with all the benefits given to other employees under Section 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the ID Act).
2. The respondent No.1 (workman) was served with charge sheet on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:11:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16546 2 MP-1751-2025 07.07.2014 and placed under suspension. A Departmental Enquiry (DE) was conducted and he was terminated from services vide order dated 30.03.2015. He challenged the same by raising a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed following issues for adjudication: -
"वाद :-
1. या ाथ के व संपा दत गृहजांच अवैध एवं अनुिचत
है य द हॉं तो भाव ?
2. या ाथ आरो पत दरु ाचरण का दोषी है य द हॉं तो
भाव?
3. या ाथ का सेवापृथक करण अवैध एवं अनुिचत है य द हॉं तो सहायता?
4. या ाथ सेवापृथक करण के बाद से बेरोजगार है य द हॉं तो सहायता ?
5. सहायता एवं यय ?
6. या ाथ वप ी ं . 3 एवं 4 से कोई सहायता ा करने का अिधकार नह ं है य द हॉं तो भाव?"
3. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Labour Court has held that the enquiry is illegal and thereafter granted an opportunity to the Management to prove the charges before the Labour Court. So far as the charge relating to the harassment to a co-worker (lady) in the Plant, the Management examined the Manager of the Plant, Shri Subhash Mathur, who admittedly was not a witness of the incident. The victim was not produced before the Labour Court to support the charge against respondent No.1 (workman). Therefore, the Labour Court, after considering the hearsay evidence, has held that the Management has failed to prove the charge. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt has been given to respondent No.1. During pendency of all these proceedings, the Management has changed. The employer has sold the Unit to some other Unit. At the time of this transfer, the benefit of Section 25FF of the ID Act was given to the existing employees / workmen and they were all paid off. Therefore, considering the changed circumstances, the learned Labour Court has only directed to pay 50% of the back wages from the date Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:11:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16546 3 MP-1751-2025 of termination till payment of benefits under Section 25FF of the ID Act to other workers.
4. On the last date of hearing, Shri Girish S. Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was directed to calculate the amount payable to the respondent (workman). Shri Patwardhan has fairly submitted a calculation, which is as under: -
Name : Mukesh Mahajan
Code : 2265
DOB : 22.06.2000
Date of Leaving Termination : 30.03.2015
Date of Leaving Transfer Deed : 28.02.2017
Grade : W
Part 1- Basic : 2940
Part 2 - Allowance : 11276
Total One Month Salary : 14216
Back wages Length as per
termination to transfer deed : 01 years 11 months 01 day
Back wages month : 23
Days : 1
Back wages amount : Monthly as per 326968 plus Days
as per 459 Total amount 327427
5. As per above calculation, the amount payable to the respondent (workman) is not on a very higher side, which may cause the financial burden on the petitioner. The respondent (workman) was under suspension from
07.07.2014 i.e. for eleven years and thereafter he was out of employment. His allegation before the Labour Court was that during suspension also, he was not paid subsistence allowance. This also can be a ground for vitiating the enquiry. However, now the petitioner has sold the Unit and given the benefit of Section 25FF of the ID Act to the workmen. Since the order of termination stands declared illegal, therefore, the respondent (workman) is also liable to be treated in the pay roll with all continuity of service.
Respondent No.1 (workman) is also entitled for benefit under Section 25FF Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 7/4/2025 6:11:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16546 4 MP-1751-2025 of the ID Act along with compensation in lieu of reinstatement. No case for interference is made out.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 7/4/2025
6:11:55 PM