IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 20902/2024)

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY ...APPELLANT(S)

Versus

M.P.P.K.V.V. CO. LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 20906/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 20905/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 20904/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 20903/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 21917/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 21918/2024)

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.20902/2024 ETC.ETC. 1

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 21919/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 21915/2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 ARISING FROM SLP(C) No. 21913/2024)

O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by ten appellants separately, and thereafter tagged together, against the impugned common judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in several connected Writ Petitions, whereby the order granting reinstatement of workmen was quashed and instead compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) was provided in lieu of reinstatement. The said Writ Petitions before the High Court were preferred by the respondent-company challenging the award(s) of the Labour Court granting similar relief of reinstatement to the appellants herein.
• 3. Brief facts of the matters are that the appellants were appointed on the sanctioned post of Operator TA Grade-2 in

Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. at different points of time pursuant to a contractual agreement obligating the appellants to serve for a period of three months. Upon successful completion of the aforesaid term, the appellants were directed to continue as a regular employee functioning as Operator TA Grade. However, in 2011, the respondent executed an agreement with the appellants so as to deprive them of the service benefits and regularization by reflecting an artificial break or interval in the service period. Subsequently, the appellants after rendering services for different periods of time since their initial date of appointment, were terminated from their services. Such illegal termination from service was challenged by the appellants by way of separate petitions and Labour Commissioner referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 1

4. The Labour Court, vide different orders, granted similar relief to the appellants whose plight was based on similar factual matrix by holding their termination to be illegal as it was in contravention with Section 25F of the ID Act. It directed the respondent to reinstate the workmen-appellants and also

<span id="page-2-0"></span>¹ ID Act

awarded backwages to the appellants depending on the specific facts of each case.

• 5. Aggrieved by the award(s) of the Labour Court, the respondent preferred several Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging each of these awards in which the impugned common order was passed. The counsel for the respondent herein had confined his arguments before the High Court to the effect that even if the Labour Court had concluded that termination of service was bad on account of non-compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, yet the direction to the respondent should have been limited to payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The High Court agreed with such contention based on its reliance on several judgments of this Court on the subject matter. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the finding with regard to setting aside of termination but so far as the order of reinstatement of workmen was concerned, the same was quashed and instead the appellants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) payable to each of them within a period of two months.
• 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before us.
• 7. On 06.09.2024, this Court had issued notice in the matters limited to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court as it agreed with the observation of the High Court that in every case where termination is found to be illegal, the grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Where such a termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect such as in violation of Section 25F of ID Act, this Court has consistently taken a view that in lieu of reinstatement the grant of monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice.
• 8. However, we do not find the grant of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation by the High Court to be adequate and just in the facts and circumstances of the present matters. The amount of sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is too nominal and unjust considering that the appellants were working as Operator TA Grade with the respondent. Additionally, the High Court while passing the impugned order has also lost sight of the fact that each of the appellant had served for a varying duration of time and a blanket/uniform grant of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation in differing cases shall not meet the ends of justice and will be in contravention with the principle of proportionality.

9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, 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 basis. The following table represents the period of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions:

Diary	Appellant'	Month<br>of	Month<br>of	Month	Period of	Amount<br>of
No.	s name	joining	commence	of	service	compensation
			ment<br>of	termina
			regular	tion
			service
34425	Amit	May, 2008	August,	June,	3 years 2	Rs. 4,75,000
/24	Kumar		2008	2011	months
	Dubey
34400	Anil	June, 2009	November,	March,	1 year 10	Rs. 2,75,000
/24	Kumar		2009	2011	months
	Choudhary
34401	Prakash	December,	March,	June,	4 years 7	Rs. 6,87,500
/24	Premi	2006	2007	2011	months
34420	Balram	July, 2008	October,	June,	3 years	Rs. 4,50,000
/24	Ahirwar		2008	2011
34720	Amar	July, 2008	October,	June,	3 years	Rs. 4,50,000
/24	Singh		2008	2011
	Thakur
24986	Devendra	January,	April, 2004	July,	7 years 7	Rs. 11,37,500
/2024	Kumar	2004		2011	months
	Shukla
34404	Abhishek	April,	July, 2008	June,	3 years 3	Rs. 4,87, 500
/2024	Chouksey	2008		2011	months

34419	Sunil	March,	May, 2008	June,	3 years 4	Rs. 5,00,000
/2024	Kumar	2008		2011	months
	Mishra
34412	Deepchan	April,	July, 2008	June,	3 years 3	Rs. 4,87, 500
/2024	dra Rohit	2008		2011	months
34721	Nilesh	February,	April, 2008	June,	3 years 5	Rs. 5,12,500
/2024	Kumar	2008		2011	months
	Pandey

• 10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as directed above which is to be paid within three months from today. Further, any payment made to the appellant(s) under Section 17B of the ID Act shall be set off while calculating the final amount to be paid. Additionally, the respondent shall be at liberty to consider the re-engagement of the appellant(s) in view of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the ID Act.
• 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………. .J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

……………………………. .J.

[ SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 29, 2025.