Breach Of Labour Court Award Is Criminal Offence: MP High Court Orders Wages For Delayed Reinstatement Period
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that non-compliance with the time period prescribed by the Labour Court in its award is a criminal offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 332]The bench of Justice Vivek Jain noted that the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of a workman within one month, which was delayed by the MP Road...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that non-compliance with the time period prescribed by the Labour Court in its award is a criminal offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 332]
The bench of Justice Vivek Jain noted that the Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of a workman within one month, which was delayed by the MP Road Transport Corporation. Rather than initiating criminal proceedings against the officers, the Executing Court closed the executing proceedings.
Setting aside the Executing Court's order, the bench held:
"the award did have the time limit for compliance which was one month from the date of award and admittedly, the said award was complied with only with a delay of three years and 4 months, i.e. on 27.07.2018...Therefore, it was a case where the officers of MPRTC had committed a criminal offence. The breach of award of Labour Court is a criminal offense and instead of proceeding criminally against the officers of MPRTC, the Executing Court has even closed the execution proceedings".
Per the facts, a workman was dismissed from service and initiated a reference before the Conciliation Officer, and the matter was referred to the appropriate government. The Labour Court thereafter held that the termination was bad in law. Per paragraph 22 of the award, the Labour Court had directed the employer to reinstate the workman within a period of a month without backwages.
However, the same was challenged by the Road Transport Corporation before the High Court in 2016, which was dismissed in July, 2024.
In the intervening period, the workman raised the issue of payments of salary from the date of award till the date of reinstatement, ie from March 4, 2015, to July 27, 2018.
The executing court closed the execution proceedings, holding that the award only directed reinstatement without backwages within one month. It also noted that since reinstatement was carried out with a delay of three years, nothing more could be done by the Executing Court.
The present revision was filed by the workman challenging the order of the Executing Court, which closed the proceedings under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which governs the execution of awards passed by Labour Courts and Tribunals established under the Act.
The counsel for the Corporation argued that the executing court's order was legal and valid, as it is only bound to execute the decree and is not required to go behind the said decree. It was further argued that since there was no direction in the award of the Labour Court to grant salary after the date of the award, the Executing Court could not grant the same.
The bench noted that the Labour Court under the Act of 1947 not only decides litigation but also industrial disputes. Emphasizing that the Jurisdiction of the Labour Court is different from that of the Regular Court, the bench highlighted:
"The purpose of raising industrial dispute and adjudication of industrial dispute by the Labour Court is larger than a mere case. It is to ultimately to bring about industrial peace and harmony which apart from deciding the grievance of the Workman, is more important than mere grievance of a workman. The basic objective is to maintain industrial peace and harmony and in this manner, to decide a dispute and not merely to decide a litigation".
Additionally, the bench noted that the the non compliance with Labour Court's award is a criminal offence as opposed to an ordinary decree of the Civil Court, which is merely executable.
The bench noted that the workman cannot be advised to initiate fresh litigation whereby the employer, without any just cause, decided not to comply with the award for three years and four months.
The bench further held, "Since industrial dispute had been decided by the Labour Court, the Executing Court also had jurisdiction to deal with the execution petition in the manner that the adjudication of the complete dispute as made by the Labour Court be executed by the Executing Court and it is not a mere execution of a order or award".
Noting that the MPRTC had avoided complying with the award for a long time, the bench observed that the Executing Court could have taken note of this late compliance. Thus, the bench held that the officer of MPRTC committed a criminal offence.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order of the Executing Court and directed the Employer to pay wages from the date, one month after the date of award, i.e, from 05.04.2015 till 26.07.2018 to the Workman within a period of thirty days from today.
The bench further directed the Executing Court to take cognizance against the Managing Directors of MPRTC under Section 29 if they fail to pay wages to the petitioner within one month from this order.
Case Title: Saresh Chandra Jatav v MP Road Transport Corporation, CR-31-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 332
For Petitioner: Advocates Manan Agrawal and Shubham Mishra
For MPRTC: Advocates Rohit Sharma and Sahil Sharma