IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT ON THE 28^th OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3999 of 2013 MANOJ SINGH RANA Versus MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DABRA Appearance:

Shri Aditya Pratap Singh with Shri Shiddharth Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Pratip Visoriya – Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

“i- That part of order annexure P/1 whereby reinstatement has been denied to the petitioner and only Rs.25,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation to the petitioner may kindly be quashed. ii Respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was an employee of the municipal council, Dabra. He was engaged with the respondent and he continued to discharge his duties with utmost devotion till 31.7.1999. After 31.7.1999 the respondent terminated the services of petitioner without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the application under Section 2-A of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Subsequently, respondent submitted the reply. Thereafter, Labour Court passed award/order dated 25.2.2013 with direction to respondent shall pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted that once the termination was found to be illegal, then the reinstatement is the only consequence which would be followed.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, 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 termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily- wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde and others reported in (2017)11 SCC 244 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the respondent had merely worked for a period of one year.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 has held as under:-

''19. The following passages from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the question of reinstatement:

(BSNL case, SCC pp. 187- 88, paras 29-30)

“29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL v. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily-wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2 to 3 years and where the terminatio