IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 29 of 2021 CENTRE FOR RESERCH AND INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE Versus SHRI SIDDARTH GAYKWAD Appearance:

Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anmol Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent.

WITH MISC. PETITION No. 2299 of 2021 SIDDHARTH GAIKWARD Versus VARISHTH ADHIKARI CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND INDUSTRICAL PERFORMANCE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anmol Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER The present petitions are filed against the same award of reinstatement of the Labour court, whereby the Labour court has ordered reinstatement with 50% of the backwages. Therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from M.P.

No.29 of 2021.

2. M.P. No.29 of 2021 is filed by the employer being agreed by that part of the award, whereby reinstatement has been ordered while M.P. No.2299 of 2021 has been filed by the workman being agreed by that part of the award, whereby in place of 100% back wages, 50% back wages have been awarded by the Labour Court.

3. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of these petitions are that the workman had initiated proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act alleging that he has been illegally retrenched on 30.04.2012, though he was working from 01.01.1997 in the employer establishment. He initially filed an application for conciliation on 30.08.2012, but when the conciliation proceedings did not get concluded within 45 days, then he straight-away filed application before the Labour Court on 02.01.2013.

4. In the statement of claim application, it was contended by him that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 01.01.1997 and retrenched on 30.04.2012 without giving any retrenchment compensation prior notice, or notice pay in lieu of notice period. It was contended that he had worked in 240 days in previous calendar year and otherwise has put in 15 years of service from 01.01.1997 till 30.04.2012 and therefore, challenged the action of dispensing with his services as illegal retrenchment and claimed protection of Section

25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. Per contra, the employer appeared before the Labour Court and contended that the employment was only an fixed term employment for 2 years on contract basis from 01.09.1998 and his performance was not good and was given repeated notices to improve his performance, but when he failed to improve the performance, then his services were dispensed with. It was contended that he was not a regular employee having no lien to the post and therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief from the Labour court.

6. Before this Court also learned counsel for the employer has vehemently argued all these grounds and has contended that the workman was only a contractual employee appointed first time on 01.09.1998. By placing vehement reliance on various show cause notices placed on record as Annexure P-4, it is contended that despite repeated notices, he failed to improve his performance and hence, the action of dispensing with services is duly in accordance with law and no relief can be granted and the Labour Court has gravely erred in granting relief of reinstatement.

7. Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of documents on record, it is seen that the employee claims that he was appointed on 01.01.1997 while the employer claims that he was appointed on 01.09.1998. The said issue does not need any deliberate discussion, because the employer itself has relied on a show cause notice dated 24.06.1997 issued to the workman alleging that on 22.06.1997, he was late in his duty, which indicates that the workman was in service at least on 22.06.1997 and therefore, it is clear that the workman has worked from 01.01.1997 till

30.04.2012, which is more than 15 years.

8. So far as the assertion that he was a contractual employ