High Court Ensures Continuity Of Labour Court Proceedings Amid Tribunal Transition

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday directed that labour courts constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act will continue to hear cases arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, until further orders, ensuring there is no disruption in labour adjudication in the State.

Division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while hearing writ petition filed by Lakhan Singh Thakur challenging Central Government notifications dated November 21, 2025 and December 8, 2025.

During the hearing, the additional solicitor general, appearing for Union of India, informed the court that a clarification issued on December 8, 2025 makes it clear that existing labour courts, industrial tribunals and the National Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would continue to adjudicate both pending and new cases. This arrangement, he submitted, was intended to maintain continuity and avoid any legal or administrative vacuum until new tribunals are constituted under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

Counsel for the petitioner had expressed apprehension that in Madhya Pradesh, labour courts notified under the MP Industrial Relations Act might stop hearing matters arising under the Industrial Disputes Act due to the impugned notifications.

HC partly allows govt’s appeal, remands time pay scale case

Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has partly allowed a writ appeal filed by Panchayat and Rural Development Department, setting aside a portion of a 2019 Single Judge order that granted time-bound pay scale benefits to an employee without considering the findings of a departmental committee.

A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice AlokAwasthi passed the order while hearing the 2025 writ appeal filed by government against Kishansingh. The court also condoned delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The appeal challenged a Single Judge order dated January 21, 2019, which had directed that the employee be treated as in service during the period between his de-notification and acquittal and be granted all consequential benefits.

During hearings, the government focused on quashing an April 9, 2019 order denying the employee time-bound pay scale benefits on the ground that he had not completed three years of satisfactory service. The state argued that a duly constituted committee had found his service record unsatisfactory, a factor overlooked by the Single Judge.

The employee contended that the Single Judge had rightly quashed the order, noting he had completed the requisite three years before de-notification, and that the department had wrongly treated his service as starting from December 14, 2017.

After reviewing the record, the division bench observed that the Single Judge quashed the April 9 order solely because the employee had completed three years, without independently evaluating the committee’s adverse findings. The court noted the use of the word “similarly” in the judgment suggested the committee’s assessment was not properly considered.

As a result, the High Court set aside the portion of the Single Judge order quashing the April 9 decision, while leaving all other directions intact. The matter has been remanded to the Single Judge for fresh consideration limited to denial of time-bound pay scale benefits.

With these observations, the writ appeal was partly allowed and disposed of.