Senior Divisional Manager vs Shri Manish Kumar Halwai
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
1 WA-1327-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
WRIT APPEAL No. 1327 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558142022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Versus
SHRI MANISH KUMAR HALWAI
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate
and Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 520 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010261952022
REGIONAL MANAGER
Versus
MOHAN LAL PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Mihir Lunawat- Advocate for the appellant.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1328 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558182022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
2 WA-1327-2022
SHRI RAM KUSHAL DAHIYA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate and
Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1329 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558242022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Versus
SHRI RAMESH KUMAR SONI
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate and
Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1330 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558252022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Versus
SHRI INDRASHARAN SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate and
Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 1333 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558322022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
3 WA-1327-2022
Versus
SHRI KAMLA LAKHERA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate and
Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 1335 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010558382022
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Versus
SHRI RAM NARESH SINGRAHA
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal-Senior Advocate Shri Kunal Thakre- Advocate and
Shri Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Ahiwasi- Advocate for the respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 237 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010108082023
ZONAL MANAGER
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR NANDANWAR
Appearance:
Shri Vasu Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Chandurker- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 713 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010277332023
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
4 WA-1327-2022
Versus
ASHARAM RAI
Appearance:
Smt. Janhavi Pandit- Additional Advocate General for appellant/State.
Shri Prabhakar Singh- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 715 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010277392023
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Versus
DHANNU RAIKWAR
Appearance:
Smt. Janhavi Pandit- Additional Advocate General for appellant/State.
Shri Prabhakar Singh- Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 717 of 2023
CNR No.: MPHC010278212023
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DIVISION DAMOH
Versus
MUNNA SINGH THAKUR
Appearance:
Smt. Janhavi Pandit- Additional Advocate General for appellant/State.
Shri Prabhakar Singh- Advocate for the respondent.
Reserved on : 01.10.2026
Pronounced on:30.10.2026
.....................................................................................................................................
O R D E R
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Writ Appeals Nos. 1327/2022, 1328/2022, 1329/2022, 1330/22,
1333/2022, & 1335/2022 have been preferred Life Insurance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
5 WA-1327-2022
Corporation of India, while Writ Appeal No. 520/2022 has been
preferred by Bank of Baroda & W.A.No.237/2023 has been filed by
Bank of Maharashtra. Other Writ Appeals No.713/2023, 715/2023 &
717/2023 have been filed by the Water Resources Department,
Government of Mdhya Pradesh.
2. The facts are common in all the Writ Appeals; hence, all are
decided by a common order. Since only one common issue is involved in
all the matters, the facts of each case are not liable to be narrated
hereinafter.
3. The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005, has been preferred by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life
Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant-
Corporation”), assailing the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in a bunch of Writ Petitions and the order dated 11.07.2022
passed in Review Petitions.
Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
4. Respondent/writ petitioners were employed by the
appellant/employer as daily wager sometimes in the years 1988 and
1989; they worked for a couple of years and discontinued from the
service. The writ petitioners approached the appropriate Central
Government authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the said
dispute was referred to the CGIT/Labour Court. The learned Labour
Court concluded that the workmen had completed 240 days in the
service; therefore, the termination is illegal due to non-compliance of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
6 WA-1327-2022
provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned
Labour Court, hence, awarded an amount of compensation in lieu of
reinstatement into the service.
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the
workmen/writ petitioners approached the High Court by way of writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking
reinstatement into the service with full back wages. The petitions were
opposed by the respondent in the writ petitions. The learned single
Judge, vide common order dated 30.10.2018, allowed all the writ
petitions by modifying the award passed by the Labour Court and
directed reinstatement into the service.
6. Since the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 30.10.2018,
allowed the said writ petitions, the appellant preferred a review petition
bearing No.194/2020, which came to be decided by order dated
11.07.2022. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the appellant-
Corporation has preferred the present writ appeal. Till today, the
respondents have not been taken back into service, and these appeals
have not been admitted for final hearing; the only issue which requires
consideration is whether, at this stage, it would be proper to maintain the
order of reinstatement of the daily wagers/respondents into the service or
uphold the order of the CGIT/Labour Court, i.e. payment of monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
7. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellant-
Corporation, submitted that it is a statutory corporation established under
the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Its constitution, functioning
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
7 WA-1327-2022
and service administration are governed by the provisions of the
aforesaid Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, as well as
the applicable provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938. Learned senior
counsel has referred to Sections 23, 48 and 49 of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956. Section 23 deals with the power of the
Corporation to employ such number of persons as may be considered
necessary for discharging its functions under the Act. Section 48
empowers the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the
purposes of the Act, whereas Section 49 empowers the Corporation,
subject to the statutory requirements and the applicable provisions of the
Act and the Rules, to frame regulations.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation
further submitted that that the service conditions of the employees of
the Corporation are regulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India
(Staff) Regulations, 1960, framed in exercise of the powers conferred
under the Act hence the daily wagers who are out of employment since
last two decades cannot be taken back into the services, hence the order
passed by the CGIT/ LC be maintained.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation accordingly prays
that the writ appeal be allowed and the orders dated 30.10.2018 and
11.07.2022 be set aside, subject to the grounds and reliefs actually raised
in the memorandum of appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.13314/2015 and Review Petition No.194/2020 and submits that no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
8 WA-1327-2022
interference by the appellate Court is warranted. It is contended on behalf
of the respondent that the order passed in the writ petition deserves to be
sustained in accordance with the facts pleaded, the applicable law, and
the material placed on record. According to the learned counsel, the
respondents have succeeded after a long battle in the labour court as well
as before the single bench. Hence, they are entitled to reinstatement in
service and further declaration of permanent status under the policy of
the state government dated 7.10 2016. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ
appeal be dismissed and the orders impugned therein be affirmed.
Appreciation & Conclusions
11. Details of all the writ petitioners are as under:-
Name Of
Worker /
Petitioner
No Of
Days
Worked
Name Of
Establishment/
Employer
Date Of
Appointment
Date Of
Termination
Amount Of
Compensation
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
60,000/
Manish
Kumar
Halwai
oral order
dated
30.09.2005
2004
84
Award dated
10.03.2015
2005
14
WA-1327-
2022
amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-
+ Rs.5733/-
as interest
1988
66
Bank of
Baroda
Mohan Lal
Patel
1989
13/12/00
90
WA-520-2022
1991
43
Award dated-
21/07/15
1996
85
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
Rs.2,50,000/
Ram
Kushal
Dahiya
oral order
dated
30.09.2005
2002
53
Award dated
10.03.2015
2003
99
WA-1328-
2022
2004
5
17.04.2000
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
9 WA-1327-2022
2000
85
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
Rs. 2,00,000
Ramesh
Kumar
Soni
oral order
dated
30.09.2005
2002
67
Award dated
10.03.2015
2003
29
WA-1329-
2022
2004
100
2005
37
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
22.04.1995
Rs. 2,00,000
oral order
dated
30.09.2005
85
Indrasharan
Sharma
1995
Award dated
08.07.2015
13
WA-1330-
2022
2005
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
oral order in
the year
2001
Rs.60,000/-
Award dated
08.07.2015
Kamla
Lakhera
October 1999
to year 2001
85
WA-1333-
2022
Life Insurance
Corporation of
India, Satna
16.04.2002 to
09.07.2002
85
Rs. 1,00,000
Ram
Naresh
Singraha
oral order
dated
30.09.2005
Award dated
10.03.2015
WA-1335-
2022
2005
19
Bank of
Maharashtra,
Chawla,
Raipur
Rs. 1,00,000
Santosh
Kumar
Nandanwa
30/12/1995 31/12/2000 481
Award dated
29.07.2013
WA-237-
2023
Water
Resources
Department,
Division,
Damoh
20.06.1989
Reinstatement
01.09.1996
Asharam
Rai
240 days
or more
back in
service in the
year 2004
Award dated
27.05.2014
27.01.2005.
WA-713-2023
Water
Resources
Department,
Division,
Damoh
01.04.1989
Reinstatement
01.08.1994
Dhannu
Raikwar
240 days
or more
back in
service in the
year 2004
Award dated
27.05.2014
27.01.2005
WA-715-2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
10 WA-1327-2022
Water
Resources
Department,
Division,
Damoh
24/01/1984
Reinstatement
Munna
Singh
Thakur
01.08.1994
240 days
or more
back in
service in the
year 2004
Award dated
27.05.2014
27.01.2005
WA-717-2023
12. It is clear from the above figures that the writ petitioners had
hardly worked for 7 to 8 years as daily wagers. Before termination, they
did not work for decades as daily wagers in order to claim regularisation.
Had they been in service? The claim for regularisation would have been
considered by the court, but they have been out of employment for more
than two decades. Therefore, the learned court has wrongly directed
reinstatement into the service by setting aside the order of payment of
monetary compensation.
13. Therefore, it is to be examined whether they are entitled to get
the relief of monetary compensation by way of a one-time settlement
instead of reinstatement with backwages. In earlier decisions,
retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 routinely led to reinstatement with full back wages. Beginning with
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey reported
in (2006) 1 SCC 479 and solidified in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State
Agriculture Mktg. Board reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327, Senior
Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic, Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal
reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773, and Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 , the Supreme Court recognised that
reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. Where a daily-rated
or casual worker was engaged for a brief stint without a regular selection
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
11 WA-1327-2022
process, and considerable time has elapsed since termination, award of
monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement serves the ends of
justice.
14. In cases such as M.P. Admn. Vs. Tribhuban reported in (2007) 9
SCC 748, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ramsahai reported
in (2006)11 SCC 684, and GDA Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (2008) 4
SCC 261, the apex Court emphasised that daily-rated workers do not
hold civil posts. When their termination violates technical statutory
mandates (e.g., non-compliance with Section 25-F/25-G), courts and
tribunals must distinguish between regular public posts and casual work,
exercising discretion to grant lump-sum compensation rather than
imposing permanent induction on the employer. It is to be seen from the
angle that daily wagers have always been treated as backdoor entities, as
they used to be appointed without following due process of selection like
regular employees. In the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3)
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and A. Umarani Vs. Registrar, Coop.
Societies & others reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 the Supreme Court of
India settled that backdoor, illegal, or irregular appointments cannot be
regularised or validated merely because a workman worked for some
duration. In the cases of State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma reported
in (2007)1 SCC 575 and Deptt. of Telecommunications Vs. Keshab Deb
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 402, the Supreme Court clarified that an
employee who gained entry through the backdoor cannot bypass public
appointment mandates under the cloak of an industrial award directing
reinstatement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
12 WA-1327-2022
15. In the case of Mehboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula
and another reported in 2008 (1) SCC 575, the Supreme Court held that a
daily wager who may have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
year and whose services were terminated in violation of the provisions of
Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not entitled to
reinstatement in service as he does not hold a right to that post, and
consequently, a daily wager was only entitled to monetary compensation.
Likewise, in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh, reported in (2013) 5 SCC
136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case of daily wagers,
casual labourers or workmen who have rendered a short span of service,
reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of a procedural violation
of Section 25F of the Act and monetary compensation would ordinarily
meet the ends of justice. A distinction has been drawn by the Supreme
Court between a daily wager and an employee holding a regular post for
the purposes of grant of consequential relief. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also held that giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap,
would not serve any purpose and the grant of compensation would meet
the ends of justice.
16. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs Mohan Lal decided on Aug 16, 2013 Civil
Appeal No. 6795 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11305 of 2006),
wherein the apex court held that reinstatement is to be seen after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be a
blanket rule; instead, appropriate compensation can be awarded.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
13 WA-1327-2022
17. That in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal,
reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that though retrenchment violated Section 25-F, relief of
reinstatement is not automatic and compensation may be awarded,
particularly where the workman was engaged as a daily wager and had
worked for a limited period or considerable time has elapsed since the
termination. In the case of Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs
Gitam Singh reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 and Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation & Ors. Vs. Gitam Singh, reported
in (2013) 5 SCC 136 and State of Uttarakhand Vs Raj Kumar, reported
in AIR 2019 SC 310, BSNL v. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177
and Distt. Development Officer v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia reported
in (2018) 12 SCC 298, 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.
18. In the case of Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, P.W.D .,
reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 794, the Supreme Court has held that
in a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240
days, the appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory
provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and where the employer is a
public authority, reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the
transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation
would be the appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court in the matter of
Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop Ganaptrao Bobde, (2017)11 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
14 WA-1327-2022
244 has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the
respondent had merely worked for a period of one year. The Supreme
Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India,
(2014) 7 SCC 190 further 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.
19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh
reported in (2021) 19 SCC 227, has held that reinstatement with full
back wages is not automatic in every case where termination/dismissal is
found to be not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law
and that the relief can be moulded depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in the
case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs M.P.P.K.V.V.Co. Ltd., SLP (CIVIL)
NO(S). 20902/2024, has not only upheld the order passed by this High
Court in respect of grant of monetary compensation but also enhanced it
by applying the formula of payment of compensation at the rate of
1.5Lakh per year of service as daily wagers on pro rata basis. The
relevant paras are as under:
"9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the matter, we deem it fit to enhance the
compensation granted to the appellants by the
High Court. We hold that the appellants
would be entitled to enhanced compensation
at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the
period they have worked and in case, they
have worked for a part of the year, then the
amount of compensation is to be calculated at
the same rate to be applied on a pro-rata
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88679
15 WA-1327-2022
basis."
20. In view of the above, we are of the view that the writ court has
wrongly set aside the Award passed by the CGIT/LC and directed for
reinstatement into the service. The respondents/ writ petitioner are only
entitled to monetary compensation, but the same is liable to be enhanced.
21. Accordingly, the writ appeals are partly allowed to the extent of
enhancement of compensation as directed above, which is to be paid
within three months from today.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 03-11-2026
12:18:57