Partly allowed

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2014WP/4014/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition partially. It held that while the impugned reinstatement order did not suffer from infirmity regarding Section 25-F compliance, the respondent waived his claim for back-wages by not pressing it before the Court. The orders were modified accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are modified: the respondent is declared not entitled to back-wages as the same was not pressed. Rest of the orders remain intact.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs Radhey… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

CAN

¶2

SINGtE BEl^H

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B1LASPUR / ^OiAWRIT PETITION N0. /2005 PETITIONER State of Chhattisgarh (S) Through Secretary Water Resources Department. Mantralay Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh J /// 2. Executive Engineer /^ ; /^7. / Water Resources Division ^ /~^f/ y/^V r- :.r: n/ BalaodaBazar J^' Raipur, Chhattisgarh ^^ .£r0^ ^ ^s¥' ^y 3. Sub Divisional 'p^fice^ '^— / Water Resources Subdivision Kasdol w .. .....^ . • / _. . _ _. -«. -. Distt.Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT(S) 1. RadheShyam /i. S/o Kashi Ram Sahu R/o Village & Post Kasdo! Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶4

Presiding Officer / Industrial Court Raipur(C.G.)

¶5

3./ PresidingOfficer Labour Court Raipur(C.G.)

¶6

../

¶7

APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶8

i/-[;:
^^

¶9

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

W.P. JBNo. 4014 of 2005

¶12

PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh and 02 others.

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

: Radhe Shyam and 02 others

¶16

(WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION

¶17

h"111^

¶18

OF INDIA)

¶19

fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.)

¶20

Present: Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Passed on 03.04.2014)

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The instant petition assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 02.12.2004 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 238/M.P.t.R.Act/A-ll/2002, affirming the order passed by the Labour Court, Raipur dated 02.05.2002 passed in Case No.12/M.P.I.R.Act/95, whereby and where-under, respondent No.1 has been reinstated with 14th back wages.

¶25

According to the petitioners' reply before the Labour Court, respondent No.1 was retrenched on 30.07.1994, as the work for which he was engaged had ended. The petitioners nowhere has denied that the respondent has not worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days, as admittedly, the respondent has worked from

¶26

^. ''^ /• ...4?' ..<^?'"

¶27

01.06.1990 up to 01.11.1994. It is also not in dispute that no retrenchment compensation has been paid to the respondent before his removal.

¶28

ININI^

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that as the respondent No. 1 has already been reinstated by the petitioner/State, he (respondent No.1) does not want to press %th back-wages as awarded by the courts below and the respondent's retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ID Act), and therefore, respondent's reinstatement does not warrant interference and the petition may be disposed of accordingly.

¶30

In view of the above, 1 do not find any infirmity in the part of the orders impugned whereby the respondent No. 1 has been reinstated for want of compliance of Section 25FofthelDAct.

¶31

fiNiiiin^iii

¶32

balram

¶33

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed in part. The orders impugned are modified to the extent that now the respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled for back-wages as the same is not pressed by him. Rest of the contents of the awards shall remain intact. However, the petitioners/State is free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/N. K. Agarwal Judge

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.N.L. Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Raju Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.saroj Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs Tula Ram and Others

Ku.Shikha Shriwas Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.