##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8508

1 MP-3483-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 3483 of 2025

INDRABHAN YADAV

Versus

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERING PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Manoj Chandurker - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Smt. Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for the Respondent

No.1/State.

ORDER

The present Petition has been filed challenging the award of the

Labour Court Annexure P-1 dated 08.05.2025 whereby the Labour Court has

granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner in lieu of

reinstatement.

2. The Petitioner had initiated proceedings under Industrial Disputes

Act which was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court

in the matter of alleged illegal retrenchment/termination of services of the

Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner was that he had been engaged in the

Public Health Engineering Department and had worked from 01.07.1999 to

the year 2018 as on 15.02.2018, he was illegally retrenched without payment

of any retrenchment compensation.

3. It was his case that he was getting minimum wages upto the date of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 1/31/2026

1:53:23 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8508

2 MP-3483-2025

retrenchment on hand receipts and HR Vouchers, but in violation of

provision of Section 25-F & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, the services

were dispensed with/retrenched. It was contended by him that he had

completed almost 19 years of service as well as worked 240 days

continuously in immediately preceding calendar year and on these assertions,

he had projected his claim before the Labour Court.

4. The respondents had taken the said assertion that the Petitioner was

never engaged in the Department and no work was taken from him and

therefore, there is no question to pay retrenchment compensation to him. It

was further contended that the payments are made in the Bank Account and

the payment should have been made on hand receipt Vouchers and therefore,

the claim of the Petitioner was contested by the respondents.

5. The Labour Court arrived at a categorical finding of fact in para 20

of its award that the Petitioner had worked at least from the year 2006 to

2008 and from 2009 to 2012 and based this finding on Ex.P-7 and P-7 filed

before the Labour Court.

6. This finding has not been challenged by the State Govt. and this

finding has become final between the parties and the State has not filed any

separate proceedings. The Labour Court has considered that the Certificates

Ex.P-7 & P-8 have not been disputed by the departmental witness and the

Certificates have been issued by the concerned authority of Public Health

Engineering Department which could not be disputed by the departmental

witness during evidence.

7. Now, the only issue that remains is that whether the relief of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH

Signing time: 1/31/2026

1:53:23 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8508

3 MP-3483-2025

reinstatement should have been ordered by the Labour Court or the relief of

lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- can be stated to be proper relief to the

Petitioner/workman.

8. As per findings of the Labour Court, the Petitioner had worked at

least for 7 years i.e, in the year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and

2012, which is supported by the Certificates Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8.

9. The issue that whether what relief the workman has to be granted in

case of illegal retrenchment was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 wherein it

has been held as under:-

"9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial

jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of

service is bad and the workman continues to be in service. The

spectre of common law doctrine that contract of personal service

cannot be specifically enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of

damages d