"Running From Pillar to Post": MP High Court Revives 26-Year-Old Back Wages Dispute, Says Res Judicata Wrongly Invoked

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, has set aside a single judge's order that had shut the door on a Municipal Corporation employee's 26-year fight for back wages after his termination, holding that the writ court erred in invoking the doctrine of res judicata to reject his claim and revive an unresolved dispute instead.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma was hearing two connected writ appeals filed by Vinod Kumar Badgaiyan, a former daily wage employee of the Revenue Department, Municipal Corporation, Katni, challenging an order dated January 16, 2024 that had gone against him even after the Labour Court had already ordered his reinstatement.

Badgaiyan was appointed on June 26, 1995 and worked continuously until August 2, 1999, when his services, along with those of 273 other daily wage employees, were terminated without following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite having completed more than 240 days of work. His monthly salary at the time of termination was Rs 1,855.

Two employees junior to him in the seniority list, Sudhir Kumar Khare and Pramod Kumar Khare, were separately reinstated by the Corporation, even though no such direction had been passed by the court in their case. Badgaiyan contended that this amounted to arbitrary and selective treatment, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Unable to move the appropriate forum in time due to lack of legal awareness, Badgaiyan's case took a long and winding route. A writ petition was first filed in 1999, followed by a Letters Patent Appeal, and later, in 2010, another writ petition after the earlier case was found to have been filed in the wrong forum. The matter was eventually relegated to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni for consideration, but the Commissioner never took it up. Compelled by the circumstances, Badgaiyan then approached the Labour Court, where he finally succeeded, with the Corporation being directed to reinstate him. However, the Labour Court did not grant him back wages, prompting him to move the writ court seeking full arrears of salary and parity with the two reinstated junior employees.

The single judge dismissed Badgaiyan's writ petition, Misc. Petition No. 5852/2022, and allowed the Corporation's connected petition, Misc. Petition No. 6047/2023, reasoning that the issue stood covered by res judicata. Aggrieved, Badgaiyan approached the division bench through the two writ appeals, seeking to have the entire dispute reopened and finally decided on merits.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, assisted by Advocate Rambachan Sahu, appeared for the appellant and argued that the writ court had "acted upon the matter as like appellate Court," and had committed a grave error in setting aside the Labour Court's order, especially when similarly situated employees like Khare and Khare had already been taken back into service.

Government Advocate Rajesh Tiwari appeared for the State, while Advocates Utkarsh Agrawal and Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi represented the Municipal Corporation, defending the impugned order as just and proper.

The division bench observed that the appellant had been "running from pillar to post and post to pillar for last more than 26 years to get his case adjudicated." It noted that when his case was earlier relegated to the Commissioner, no consideration was ever given to it, leaving the adjudication "inconclusive." The bench held that res judicata could apply only when an issue had been "substantially decided after due consideration," which had not happened in this case.

Calling this the "lynch pin" on which the writ court had wrongly rested its decision, the bench allowed both appeals, set aside the January 16, 2024 order, and restored the petitions to the file of the writ court. Considering that the litigation had already stretched beyond a quarter of a century, the bench requested the writ court to decide the matter "at an early note" so the parties could know the fate of the litigation "as early as possible."

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Badgaiyan vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matter

Date of Order: August 21, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma