IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 17 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 540 of 2022 THE SECRETARY SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY AND OTHERS Versus SHIV PRASAD YADAV WITH WRIT PETITION No. 608 of 2022 THE PRINCIPAL SAINIK SCHOOL REWA Versus RAMHIT KORI WRIT PETITION No. 609 of 2022 THE PRINCIPAL SAINIK SCHOOL REWA Versus RAM PRATAP YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 7476 of 2022 THE PRINCIPAL Versus SUBHASH CHANDRA WRIT PETITION No. 20435 of 2022 THE PRINCIPAL Versus SHRI MOHANLAL Appearance:

Shri Rohit Sohgaura- Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Brindavan Tiwari- Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER These petitions have been filed by the Secretary, Sainik School Society, running Sainik School, at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. The petitions have been filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR challenging the award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur which are in similar terms, and on identical facts, and relate to employees of the same school therefore, these petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. WP No. 540 of 2022 and W.P. No. 609 of 2022 are somewhat on different facts in as much as, in these two cases, there was earlier a settlement between the parties during course of conciliation proceedings and thereafter, the workmen were engaged for some limited periods, and then they were disengaged and there is some dispute whether the workmen were disengaged, or whether the workmen stopped attending the work. In other cases, there has been no settlement between the parties and straight away retrenchment was put to challenge by the workmen before the CGIT.

3. So far as WP No. 540 of 2022 and W.P. No. 609 of 2022 are concerned, the Council for the petitioners argued that the workmen approached the conciliation proceedings with a case that they have been working since 1998/1996 in these two cases, in the Sainik School, Rewa, as daily rated employees. They approached the conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act with a complaint that they have been illegally retrenched on 01-11-2013 without passing any formal order and during the course of conciliation proceedings, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, which is placed on record as Annexure P/1 to show that the parties agreed that the workmen would rejoin the duties on the same terms and conditions and in the same status of daily rated employees which they were having on the date of alleged retrenchment. They would be paid wages through bank accounts. The Counsel for the petitioners further stated that these two workmen, namely Shiv Prasad Yadav and Ram Prasad Yadav were then re-engaged and they Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR worked only for 9 days and 13 days respectively and then stopped attending work. Show-cause notice was issued asking to attend the work but they did not attend the work and instead approached the CGIT with the grievance of illegal retrenchment. By referring to the statement of claim submitted by the workmen, it is argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that the workmen were unable to bring on record any letter of appointment and therefore, it was clear that they were illegal and backdoor appointees. By further referring to the Sainik School Society Rules and Regulations 1997, it is argued that there is a proper procedure for appointment in Sainik schools as per the Regulations of the society and unless the workmen were appointed in accordance with the said Regulations, the workmen could not claim any relief from the CGIT and the CGIT ought to have rejected their claims.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners also vehemently argues that the Sainik School Society as a policy matter has decided to go in for outsourcing of menial jobs which were being carried out by the petitioners like the jobs of gardener, watchman, peon etc. Therefore, now there is no work left for the workmen in the school because such