##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3509

1 WP. No.3999 of 2013

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.”

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MOHD AHMAD

Signing time: 1/30/2026

6:29:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3509

2 WP. No.3999 of 2013

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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MOHD AHMAD

Signing time: 1/30/2026

6:29:49 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3509

3 WP. No.3999 of 2013

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 Indu