Allowed

D.P. Sharaf v. S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2012WA/555/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a writ petitioner's grievance regarding salary deductions made by S.E.C.L. cannot be decided directly in writ jurisdiction. The court ruled that such issues fall under labour laws and must be adjudicated by the appropriate industrial or payment of wages authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum for adjudication of grievance.

D.P. Sharaf Vs S.E.C.L. and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (/%iv,

¶2

DB: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE &

¶3

HON'BLE MR^G.JdINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶4

Writ Anneal No.555 of 2011

AppeUant

D.P. Sharaf

Versus

Respondents S.E.C.L. and another

¶9

Present: Appellant D.P. Sharaf present in person. Dr. NK Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Khare, counsel for the respondents.

¶10

Anoeal to Division Bench under Section 2 (llofthe Chhattisearh Hieh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

¶11

O R D ER

¶12

(Passed on 3rdJuly, 2012)

¶13

The following order of the Court was

¶14

passed by Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

This is an appeal filed by the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6427 of 2010 under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by Single Judge in aforeraentioned writ petition.

¶17

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and declined to grant any relief to him, which he had claimed in the writ petition.

¶18

Facts of the case are very short.

¶19

The appellant (writ petitioner) is working with the respondent -South Eastem Coal fields Ltd. His grievance was against the deduction, wbich was being made by the

¶20

'"vvf7^""^." ^s:"%. ^' 1

¶21

K;s^

¶22

S.E.C.L. from his monthly salaiy at the rate of 1% from his basic pay. This deduction was being made by the SECL (respondent) towards payraent of electricity charges payable by the appellant. He, therefore, filed a writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises challenging the action of the SECL in making such deduction. It is this writ petition, which was disniissed giving rise to filing of this appeal.

¶23

Having heard the appellant (writ petidoner) in person and also the counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the issue of this nature has to be decided in the first instance under labour laws rather than in writjurisdiction.

¶24

In our considered view, and as would be clear the issue of this nature relates to deduction of some money against some charges by SECL from their employee and hence such case would falls within the meaning of what is called "alleged illegal deduction" by the employer attractin^ the provisions of Payment of Wages Authority, if the said Act is applicable to the parties or any State Industrial Relations Act or Industrial Disputes Act as the case niay be for its deterniinadon. Such issue needs adjudication on facts and may require some evidence to be adduced at the instance of both parties for its proper adjudication. It is for all these reasons we are of the view that the appellant (writ petitioner) should be granted liberty to file and approach appropriate forum as mentioned above depending upon his status and the nature of grievance against the respondent (SECL) and depending upon the orders that may be passed by any such authorities under the Act, to approach to High Court if occasion anses.

¶25

In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Irapugned order is set aside and the appellant (writ petitioner) is allowed to approach as raay be advised to any suitable foruin as specified in any of the Acts mentioned supra for adjudication of his rights for his grievance qua respondent (SECL) in relation to the impugned deduction. If any such application, dispute, reference as the

¶26

^^.
R^^^^

¶27

case may be is filed /made by the appellant (writ petitioner) before any forum, then the same shall be decided by the concerned forum in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the writ Court in the impugned order on merits, which now stands set aside by this order.

¶28

No cost.
Sd/-
Sd/-
G. Minhajuddin
Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judge
Judge

¶29

Bini

D.P. Sharaf v. S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.P. Sharaf v. S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.L.Taori Vs Commissioner Central Excise Raipur

Commissionr Central Excise Vs M/S Vindhya Telelink Ltd.

Gopal Oil Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs Municipal Counsel Bilha and Ors.

Ambika Namdeo and Ors. Vs Awdesh Singh Yadav and Ors.

Vs

Shiv Kumar Vs Registrar Public Trust Cum Coll. and Ors.