IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 551 of 2016

MADHAV INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE THR

Versus

BRIJRAJ SINGH

Appearance:

Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate with Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for

the petitioner.

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER termination of the respondent to be illegal and therefore, directed for his reinstatement without back wages vide award dated 30.11.2015, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

1. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India challenges the award dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior whereby, the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in

service without back wages.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:-

3.1 The petitioner is a private education institution which is receiving

block grant from the State Government. The respondent was temporarily engaged as a daily wager (Chowkidar) with the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1993

and his services were dispensed with on 31.03.2000.

3.2 On the reference filed by the respondent, the dispute was referred

to the Labour Court. The Labour Court on adjudicating the dispute, held the

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court had erred in facts as well as law in allowing the claim filed by the respondent. He submits that since the petitioner-institution was receiving block grant from the State Government, therefore, in terms of the directions issued by the State Government, the services of the respondent were dispensed with. The reference made by the respondent without impleading the State Government was itself not maintainable. That apart, he also submits that the labour Court had erred in law in holding that the respondent had worked for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination and that no retrenchment compensation in accordance with law was extended to him.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that looking to the fact that the respondent was a daily wager and was not working against any sanctioned post, then, even if the termination was found to be illegal by the Labour Court, then, the adequate relief which ought to have been granted by the Labour Court was compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned award but admits that the respondent-workman had by now attained the age of superannuation.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as the finding given by the Court below that the termination of the respondent was illegal is concerned, the petitioner being the employer was in possession of every document to show that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days. Admittedly, the petitioner did not bring any evidence on record to rebut the claim of the respondent that he has worked for more than 240 days. It is well established principle of law that if a party is in possession of best evidence and fails to produce the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below did not commit any mistake by holding that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days.

9. So far as the question of reinstatement is concerned, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court is required to be seen. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (supra) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:-

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termi