IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 1370 of 2004

LOKESH SHRIVASTAVA

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT & ANR.

Appearance:

Shri R.B. Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER before the Labour Court, which is available in the record of the Labour Court, which has been requisitioned and has also been brought on record in this petition as Annexure P-3. In the said statement, the petitioner in unequivocal terms stated that he was unemployed after termination and said evidence of the petitioner remained unrebutted, therefore, the petitioner ought to have awarded the backwages as there was no denial by the employer regarding unemployment of the petitioner after passing of order of termination.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has called in question a part of

the award dated 8.9.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Rewa in I.D. Case No. 13 of 1995 by which the backwages were declined to the petitioner by the

Labour Court.

2 . The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had

assailed his termination by raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Rewa vide I.D. Case No. 13 of 1995. The Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 8.9.1998 and issued direction for reinstatement of the petitioner, however, declined the backwages. The part of the award by which the backwages have been declined to the petitioner has been assailed in the

present petition.

3. It is contended that the said part of the impugned award is liable to

be set aside, inasmuch as, there is no consideration by the Labour Court as regards petitioner's evidence. The statement of the petitioner was recorded

4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. On previous date also no one had appeared on behalf of the respondents. There is a return filed by respondent No. 2 and on perusal of the same, it reflects that in response to paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 of the petition, it is stated that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is absolutely legal and the petitioner is not entitled for backwages. The return filed by respondent No. 2 does not deal with the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 5.6 of the petition.

5. Heard the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including the impugned award.

6 . On perusal of record, it reflects that the Labour Court vide impugned award issued direction for reinstatement of the petitioner, however declined the backwages. The Labour Court while declining the backwages did not assign any reason in the award, which is evident from paragraph 11 of the impugned award. The Labour Court was duty bound to assign the reason as to why the petitioner was not entitled for backwages, more particularly when the petitioner in his statement before the Labour Court categorically stated that he remained unemployed after order of termination. Since there was evidence so adduced by the petitioner, the Labour Court ought to have sifted the same and should have arrived at the finding as regards grant of backwages. Apparently, the impugned award is silent as regards backwages. Respondent No. 2 also in paragraph 10 of the return, has not clarified as to why the petitioner was not entitled for backwages. The return only contains evasive denial of the averments made in the body of the petition.

7. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court ought to have considered the aspect of grant of backwages in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others -

(2013) 10 SCC 324 wherein it has been held as under:-

"22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffer