Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4207
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ
SUMITABH – Appellant
Versus
AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.729 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.739 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.740 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.741 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.742 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.744 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.745 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.746 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.749 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.751 of 2024 | WRIT APPEAL No.755 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Mahesh Kumar Choudhary
For the Respondents:
The court ruled that employment in local bodies must adhere strictly to recruitment rules, invalidating claims of illegal termination for workers appointed without due process.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appointments - Employment status of daily wagers - Appellants claimed illegal termination after 240 days of service. Labour Court ruled termination illegal; writ court dismissed the appeal citing absence of employer-employee relationship as per established recruitment rules. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction - Local bodies and statutory provisions - Writ court emphasized that employment in local bodies must follow due process of law under the Municipal Corporation Acts, preventing backdoor appointments. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were daily wagers appointed without following established procedures. They claimed illegal termination noting work period over 240 days provided them employee rights. (Para 3)
Findings of Court:
Writ court found no legal basis to support claims of employment and upheld the lower courts’ dismissal. (Paras 5, 9)
Issues: Whether the appellants' employment claims were valid under the applicable statutes and rules. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: Evidence presented did not establish a legal employer-employee relationship; hence, the substantial ruling against the claims was justified. (Para 8)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of illegal termination of daily wagers. (Para 3 , 4) |
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No.729 of 2024 SUMITABH Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WITH WRIT APPEAL No.739 of 2024 PANKAJ Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.740 of 2024 MANISHANKAR Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.741 of 2024 SANTOSH Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.742 of 2024 ARUN Versus Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.744 of 2024 SANTOSH Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.745 of 2024 SURAJ Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.746 of 2024 NEERAJ Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.749 of 2024 DHARMENDRA Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.751 of 2024 MAHENDRA Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN WRIT APPEAL No.755 of 2024 RAHUL Versus AYUKT, NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN _____________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Kumar Choudhary - Advocate for the appellants.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
1. This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Appeal Nos.729/24, 739/24, 740/24, 741/24, 742/24, 744/24, 745/24, 746/24, 749/24, 751/24 & 755/24. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid appeals, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.
2. Appellants have filed these appeal challenging the order dated 31.1.2024, whereby the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain has been allowed and the order of Labour Court dated
1.7.2020 in Case No.148/2019/ID Act (Reference) has been set aside.
For convenience the facts are being taken from WA No.729/2024:-
3. Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain is a local body established under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 . The appellant approached the Labour Court by way of reference that he was appointed on the post of Daily Wager on 10.3.2016 on fixed salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and after three years in the year 2019 by an oral order he was discontinued from the service without any notice and compensation. The Nagar Parishad did not follow the principle of last come first go. After discontinuing the service, other daily wagers have been appointed. The appellant had worked more than 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, he had acquired the status of permanent employee, hence termination amounts to retrenchment, hence without payment of compensation same is liable to be declared illegal.
4. The Nagar Parishad contested the dispute by submitting that the daily wagers were not directly appointed by the Nagar Parishad, in fact they Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH served through M/s Raj Security Force, Bhopal by way of an agreement. M/s Raj Security Force appointed them and deputed in the Nagar Palika under the outsourcing agreement, therefore, there was no employer- employee relation with him, hence the claim is liable to be dismissed. The learned labour court has discarded the aforesaid contention and held that the workman was directly appointed and paid by the Nagar Palika, hence the termination without payment of compensation is illegal and he is liable to be reinstated with full backwages. The similar nature of the award has been passed in case of other 11 workmen who filed the identical claim case. The Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain filed 17 miscellaneous petitions before this Court challenging the award.
5. After the notice in the petition, the Writ Court has allowed all the miscellaneous petitions on the ground that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence that were produced on the record. Hence, the award passed in favour of the workmen is erroneous because merely payment of salary/wages from the bank account which is in the name of Municip
