Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5527
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J
MANIRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AMAR CHAND AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 31281 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Harish Joshi
For the Respondents: Shri Sudarshan Joshi
Labour Court orders for classification and payment of benefits are binding, and rejections must be justified with prior directives in consideration.
Headnote:(A) Labour Court Act - Classification of employee and entitlement to arrears - The directions from Labour Court for payment of benefits are binding on respondents - The rejection of representation without considering past orders is flawed. (Para 5)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The current case's decision is based squarely on previous judgments regarding similar circumstances. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petition was initiated following the Labour Court's directive for classification and payment of benefits to the petitioner's deceased father.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, directing payment of all consequential benefits along with interest.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court's directions included payment of salary arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Labour Court awards must be fully adhered to and can't be disregarded by subsequent orders unless justified. The benefit entitlements were clearly stated in the original ruling.
Result: Impugned order quashed, and directives for payment issued.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA th ON THE 19 OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31281 of 2025 MANIRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AMAR CHAND AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Harish Joshi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi GA for State.
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the representation dated
06.12.2022 passed by the respondent no.2,.
Facts of the case are that petitioner’s father submitted dispute before the labour court on 13.07.1990, which was allowed on 26.10.2002, in which respondents were directed to classify him as permanent employee & grant all the benefits of permanent employee and also directed to pay difference of pay from the date of filing of the case before Labour court. That order has been upheld up to the Apex court. When the respondents did not pay the difference of arrears as per circular dt. 29.10.21 then petitioner’s father filed writ petition no.86/2021, which was disposed off on 12.03.2022, with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the case of petitioner’s father in accordance with law within the period of two months. Thereafter petitioner’s father expired on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA
28.05.2024 then the petitioner submitted Cont. case No. 4197/24, which was disposed of on 12.03.2025. Thereafter the petitioners submitted representation which was rejected on 06.12.2022 which has been communicated on 24.06.2025 without considering the award date
26.10.2002, hence this petition.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that matter is squarely covered by the order of this Court in the case of Hariram Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No.
9045/2023).
Counsel for the respondent/State made an endeavour to distinguish the said case, however after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hariram (supra).
Counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned order the respondents have stated that the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled for the difference of the salary as the labour Court had only directed for classification and not directed for payment of the arrears.
Upon perusal of the award, it is clear that the Labour Court while passing the award had directed not only for classification but also directed for payment of consequential benefits and classification from the date of filing of the claims. The para 5 of the said order is reproduced as under:
''उपरो(cid:5)ानुसार वाद-(cid:12)(cid:13) (cid:14)01 लगायत 3 के िनरा(cid:14)रम के आधार पर वाद-(cid:12)(cid:13) (cid:14)0 4 बाबत यह आदेश (cid:28)दया जाता है (cid:28)क (cid:31)वप(cid:32)ी (cid:12)ाथ(cid:35) को अपने िनयोजन म(cid:37) ग(cid:37)गकु ली के पद पर (cid:38)थाई वग(cid:35)कृत कर(cid:37) एवं (cid:38)थाई कमच(cid:43) ार(cid:45) को हैिसयत अनुसार ह(cid:45) वेतनमान एवं त(cid:46)संबंधी अ(cid:47)य सम(cid:38)त लाभ जो (cid:38)थाई कमच(cid:43) ा(cid:49)रय(cid:50) को देय है, वे (cid:12)दान कर(cid:37)। वग(cid:35)करण क(cid:53) सहायता सामा(cid:47)यत: दावा (cid:12)(cid:38)तुती (cid:28)दनांक के दो वष (cid:43) पूव (cid:43) म(cid:37) (cid:28)दलाई जा
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA सकती है (cid:28)क(cid:47)तु (cid:12)करण क(cid:53) प(cid:49)र(cid:56)(cid:38)थितय(cid:50) को (cid:57)(cid:31)(cid:58)गत रखते हुए मेरे मत म(cid:37) वग(cid:35)करण क(cid:53) सहायता (cid:12)ाथ(cid:35) को जब उसने दावा (cid:12)(cid:38)तुत (cid:28)कया अथात(cid:43) ् दावा (cid:12)(cid:38)तुती (cid:28)दनांक से (cid:28)दलाई जाना (cid:47)यायोिचत होगा। अत: (cid:31)वप(cid:32)ी दावा (cid:12)(cid:38)तुती (cid:28)दनांक से (cid:12)ाथ(cid:35) को (cid:38)थाई वग(cid:35)कृत (cid:38)थाई पद अनु(cid:61)प सम(cid:38)त लाभ अदा कर(cid:37) एवं तदन(cid:61)प दावा (cid:12)(cid:38)तुती (cid:28)दनांक के अ(cid:47)तर क(cid:53) रािश भी अदा कर(cid:37)। आदेश का पालन दो माह म(cid:37) (cid:28)कया जावे। (cid:12)करण क(cid:53) प(cid:49)र(cid:56)(cid:38)थितय(cid:50) को देखते हुए यह भी आदेिश
