The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the protection of workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, presiding as a single judge bench, overturned a 2017 Labour Court decision, ruling in favor of Pankaj Kumar Mishra, a worker who had been orally terminated without proper procedure.
Read Also:- MP High Court Finds Driver’s Dismissal for Delay in VIP Duty Disproportionate
Pankaj Kumar Mishra had been working as a skilled labourer for the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti since 2011. His employment continued without disruption until 2019, when he was suddenly removed from service without any formal order, notice, or retrenchment compensation. Mishra claimed that this termination breached Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates notice and compensation for any workman with over 240 days of continuous service in the past year.
Despite his claims, the Labour Court had rejected Mishra’s demand for full back wages, holding that he had failed to establish 240 days of continuous service in the relevant period. However, the High Court took a different view.
Quoting from its earlier ruling in Goverdhan v. Chief Municipal Officer (Misc. Petition No. 6329/2022), the High Court emphasized:
“Once the employee gives oral testimony of continuous service, the burden shifts on the employer to disprove the claim through proper records.”
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Director, Fisheries Terminal Dept. v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, reiterating that an employer's failure to submit records allows the court to draw an adverse inference.
Read Also:- MP High Court Orders Transfer of Head Constable Accused of Rape Amid Probe Manipulation Allegations
Interestingly, the employer’s own witness admitted during the proceedings that Mishra had been working from 2011 to 2019. Yet, the employer failed to produce documents proving otherwise. The Court found that the burden of disproving continuous service was not discharged.
Highlighting the violation of Section 25(f), the Court stated:
“The termination of services without notice or compensation, despite clear evidence of continued employment, renders the action illegal.”
Accordingly, the High Court declared Mishra’s termination as unlawful and directed the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to reinstate him. He was also awarded 50% back wages along with all consequential benefits arising from his reinstatement.
Case Title:Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
(Misc. Petition No. 865 of 2018)
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Chitra Bais
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.P. Jain
