MP High Court: Delay In Complying With Labour Court Award Can Attract Criminal Action

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Executing Courts dealing with awards passed by Labour Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot treat delayed compliance as irrelevant merely because the underlying direction has eventually been carried out, ruling that breach of such an award is a criminal offence and that the Executing Court is duty-bound to take note of it.

Justice Vivek Jain of the High Court's Jabalpur Bench was hearing a Civil Revision filed by workman Suresh Chandra Jatav against the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others, challenging an order dated October 30, 2025, by which the Executing Court had closed execution proceedings. Shri Manan Agrawal, with Shri Shubham Mishra, appeared for the petitioner-workman, while Shri Rohit Sharma with Shri Sahil Sharma, appeared for the Corporation.

The dispute traced back to an award dated March 4, 2015, by which the Labour Court had held the workman's termination bad in law and directed his reinstatement without back wages within one month. Instead of complying, MPRTC challenged the award before the High Court, and the writ petition remained pending for years until it was finally dismissed on July 9, 2024. In the meantime, the workman was reinstated on July 27, 2018, roughly three years and four months after the award, leaving open the question of wages for the intervening period, from March 4, 2015 to the date of reinstatement.

When the workman sought execution of this claim, the Executing Court closed the proceedings, holding that the award only spoke of reinstatement without back wages, that reinstatement had already taken place, and that granting wages for the delay period would mean going behind the decree, something an Executing Court cannot do.

Justice Jain disagreed. The order noted that the purpose of adjudication before a Labour Court is fundamentally different from ordinary civil litigation. "The Labour Court when it passes the award does not only decide a litigation before it but it decides a industrial dispute," the Court observed, adding that the larger objective is to preserve "industrial peace and harmony," relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Workmen of M/S Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Limited v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company.

Because the award itself had fixed a one-month deadline for compliance, the Court held this was not a case where the question of post-award wages could simply be ignored. "The Employer/MPRTC having avoided to comply the award within the time limits prescribed therein and having complied the award after three years and four months from the date of award, the Executing Court could have taken note of this late compliance," the order said.

The Court also invoked Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which makes breach of the terms of any settlement or award binding on a party a punishable offence, attracting imprisonment up to six months, fine, or both, with a continuing daily fine of up to Rs 200 for ongoing breach. "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," the Court remarked, calling this approach unsustainable.

Setting aside the Executing Court's order, Justice Jain directed MPRTC to pay wages for the period from April 5, 2015 to July 26, 2018 within thirty days. Failing this, the Executing Court was directed to refer the matter to the appropriate Labour Court to take cognizance against all Managing Directors of MPRTC who held office between March 4, 2015 and the present date, for prosecution under Section 29. The Executing Court was further directed to ensure recovery of the salary amount for the relevant period.

The Civil Revision was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with the Court underscoring that workmen "cannot be advised to initiate fresh litigation" merely because an employer chooses, without any just cause, to delay compliance.

Case Title: Suresh Chandra Jatav vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others

Date of Order: August 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain