Allowed

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others v. Chandan Lal Katare

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2014WPL/2206/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismisses a Union Ministry's petition challenging the validity of a Labour Court award granting subsistence allowance. The Court held that the respondent, a civil servant with a criminal conviction, could be terminated without enquiry under Article 311, making the dispute non-maintainable and the award without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award passed by the Labour Court granting subsistence allowance is set aside, and the petition is allowed.

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others Vs Chandan… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT (3F CHHATTLQGARH RH ASPHR

¶2

SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

¶3

W.P. (L) No.2206 of 2008

¶4

PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶5

Versus

¶6

RESPONDENT Chandan Lal Katare

¶7

'Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the respondent.

¶8

ORAL ORDER (15.07.2014)

¶9

Petitioners have assailed the Iegality and validity of the award passed by Labour Court, Raipur on 09/10/2007 whereby petitioners have been directed to grant 50% subsistence allowance to the respondent during pendency^{ofhiscriminalappealbeforetheHighCourt.}

¶10

Respondent—workman is working as Handpump Mechanic in the Department of Public Health Engineering. For an incident which happened on 21/10/1994 he was tried for committing offence under Section 307/34 and 325/34 of IPC and was convicted and sentenced for Rl for five years and RI for one year respectively by judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda—Bazar on 07/11/1998 in Sessions Trial No. 219/1995. In Criminal Appeal No. 2766/1998 the respondent was released on bail by the High Court on 02/12/1998. Pursuant to his conviction, respondent was terminated by his employer on 09/12/1998. Challenging this termination, respondent raised an industrial dispute wherein the impugned award has been rendered.

¶11

Learned State counsel would argue that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to grant substance alloWance during pendency of the criminal appeal by the employee'He would submit that since the employee was not terminated or retrenched in violation of any provisions of any lrfdustrial i l i i l i

¶12

Dispute Act, 1947, there is inherent lack ofiurisdiction with the Labour Court and the impugned award is not at all sustainable.

¶13

Learned counsel for the workmen has supported the impugned award.

¶14

Admittedly, respondent—workmen was a regular employee and was governed under set of service rules including the C.G. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control ‘of and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The respondent being holder a civil post, provisions^ofArticle311 of the Constitution of lndia also applies to him. Under the relevant service law as also under the proviso to Article 311(2) it is provided that when an employee is convicted in a criminal case, he can be terminated without holding regular enquiry. Thus, the termination of respondent was not illegal and the dispute raised before the Labour Court was not at all referable or maintainable. Since the Labour Court had inherent lack‘ofjurisdiction, the award rendered by it is withoutjurisdiction.

¶15

For the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set-aside. The respondent would be at liberty to take recourse to the

¶16

remedy available to him in law.

¶17

4‘ x Sdl-
,Prashant Kumar Mishra /’/
Judge -

¶18

r‘fi"K

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others v. Chandan Lal Katare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh and 2 Others v. Chandan Lal Katare

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

Satyawat Mahapatra and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Teshlal Prajapati Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Mina Sahu Vs the Chief Executive Off. Palari Jan.

Smt.shashi Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Guha Ram Miri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.