##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:61496

1 CR-31-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 11 OF AUGUST, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 31 of 2026

SURESH CHANDRA JATAV Versus

MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Manan Agrawal with Shri Shubham Mishra - Advocates for the Petitioner.

Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate through V.C. with Shri Sahil Sharma for the Respondents No.1 & 2.

ORDER

The present Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Executing Court whereby the Executing Court has closed the execution proceedings on the ground that the award which was originally passed by the Labour Court dated 04.03.2015 has been executed and nothing remains to be done in execution of the said award and the relief that the decree-holder is now pressing for, amounts to the Executing Court going behind the decree which

cannot be granted by the Executive Court.

2. The execution proceedings in question are the proceedings under Section 11 (9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which relate to execution of awards passed by the Labour Court and Tribunals established under the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 8/12/2026

12:59:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:61496

2 CR-31-2026 said Act of 1947.

3. The workman had been dismissed from service and he initiated reference before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter, the matter was referred by the appropriate government. The Labour Court held that the termination of services of the employee of the workman is bad in law and directed reinstatement without back wages. As per paragraph 22 of the award dated 04.03.2015, the Labour Court had directed the the employer to reinstate the Workman back in service within a period of one month without

back wages. Para 22 of the award of the Labour Court was as under:-

"(cid:1)ववा(cid:4)क क07 सहायता एवं (cid:12)यय :-

22- फलतः उपयु(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:1)ववेचन के आधार पर आवेदक के (cid:28)ारा (cid:29)(cid:30)तुत (cid:31)कया गया आवेदन आंिशक (cid:35)पं से (cid:30)वीकार करते हुए अनावेदके प(cid:38) को यह िनद(cid:40)िशत (cid:31)कया जाता है (cid:31)क वह आवेदक को (cid:1)बना (cid:1)पछले वेतन के एक माह के भीतर सेवा म(cid:47) पुन(cid:48)था(cid:1)पत करे। उभय प(cid:38) अपना अपना (cid:12)यय

वहन कर(cid:47)।"

4. Therefore, there was a stipulation to comply with the direction within one month which had to be complied with by the employer/M.P.

Road Transport Corporation.

5. However, the M.P. Road Transport Corporation chose to challenge the said award dated 04.03.2015 before the High Court in W.P. No.8795 of 2016 which remained pending and ultimately, the said petition was dismissed

on 09.07.2024.

6. In the intervening period, the Workman had been reinstated on

27.07.2018 and therefore, the question that was raised by the workman was the question of payment of salary from the date of award till the date of

reinstatement i.e, from 04.03.2015 to 27.07.2018.

7. The Executing Court has closed the execution proceedings holding

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 8/12/2026

12:59:20 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:61496

3 CR-31-2026 that the award only directs reinstatement without backwages within one month and since reinstatement has been carried out though with delay of more than three years, but nothing more can be done by the Executing Court as it would amount to the Executing Court going behind the decree which is

not permissible as per law.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Corporation has vehemently argued that the aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court is fully legal and valid and is in accordance with law because the law is settled that Executing Court is only bound to execute the decree that has been passed and the Executing Court is not required to go behind the decree. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Corporation has cited a number of judgments