Allowed

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. Anita Soni

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2014WPL/869/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Labour Court award directing reinstatement without back wages for a daily wager employee. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the Court held reinstatement unjustified for casual labour and awarded monetary compensation of Rs. 1 lakh instead.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, payable within six weeks with 9% interest on default.

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs Anita… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

•|ti!|S! sss SIB^ fflili

¶2

SiS

¶3

Sfff

¶4

COURTFEE8EXEWPTED BY ItOTIFICATION MO. aaSQ/O-WWWl»e.G^05/ASSPECIFIED INSCKEDHt£ ,l& OFTHECOURTFEESACT1870

¶5

IN THE HIGH COUR'FQFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGAR.H

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NQ.^ ^ a> / 2009

¶7

PETITIONER /l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S.'Bhawan, Mantralaya, T' Raipur (CG) .<; ^/.. p^,^0,^ '7\fv" <^2. Superintendent, Balika Samprekshan Grih, G.E. Road, In / ^•^/\ front of P.T.S., Rajnandgaon (CG) •1»<-" VERSUS • RESPONDENT ^ Anita SoniW/o Ramlal Soni, R/p

¶8

^ Anita SoniW/o Ramlal Soni, R/p Kourinbhata, Ward No. 39, Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶9

•BB'f':

¶10

WRITP.ETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF tNDIA

i:a

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶15

SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE_SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J.

¶16

W.P. (U No. 869 of 2009

¶17

PETITIONER

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh

Versus

RESPONDENT

Anita Soni

Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶23

t 'T::

¶24

Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Miss Preeti Yadav, counsel forthe . respondent.

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(04.07.2014)

¶27

Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the award dated 27/05/2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon whereby the learned Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the respondent herein in the service without backwages. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employer would submit that on availability of certain works the services of the respondent was engaged on temporary basis, however, subsequently the services ofthe respondent was discontinued on the ground of non-availability of work. Being aggrieved the respondent approached before the Court under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act, 1947') in the said dispute; the Labour Court issued notices to the petitioner/employer. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the reply and contended that the respondent is a casual labour and was employed on daily wages basis. The petitioners also contended before the Labour Court that the respondent has never worked for more than 240 days in a preceding calendar year. Learned counsel would submit that while deciding the dispute the Labour Gourt has not at anappreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. The respondent was not in service against any sanctioned post and as such the provisions of the Act, 1947 would not to be applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel would submit that

¶28

».31 sy/«"' ^;.S..At-:]"'

¶29

¶30

at the most instead of reinstatement the respondent is entitled for some compensation on the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent was removed from service without following the due process of law because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to the respondent and even no show cause notice has been issued to putforth her case.

¶31

The identical issue has already beenconsidered and decided by the learned single Judge of this Court is State of Chhattisgarh & Another Vs. Dhaniram and other connected writ petitions and instead of reinstatement, monetary compensation has been awarded. The said decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Brij Nandan Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another^ and other connected writ appeals and even the same hasalso been confirmed by the Supreme Court \n Bhj Nandan Chandra Vs. Sfate of Chhattisgarh &Anothei3. 3. The Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh , observed as under:

¶32

&,-

¶33

"4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly /a/cf down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 day.s,' in our considered view, relief of

¶34

WP (L) No. 3034 of 2009 (decided on2-2-2011)

¶35

WA No. 50 of 2011 (decided on 17-02-2011) Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 15761 of2011 (decided on 5-7-2011) (2012)^ISCC558

¶36

^>7^*i^. ls'''%>... 't-m ^5 %, ^' • ^ ^ ^-h-^'^S?'•!^'awvf'

¶37

¶38

•3

¶39

reinstatement cannot be said to bejustified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends ofjustice. 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27-5-2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs.2 lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum."

¶40

Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh5.

¶41

^•f-

¶42

In wew of the above facts and circumstances of the case and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present cases, where the respondent has worked on daily wages only for two years, instead of reinstatement in service, monetary compensation would sub-serve the ends of justice. Thus, the respondent/employee is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Such payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.

¶43

As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

Sd//PrashantKumar Mishra Judge

¶46

Y-

¶47

(2013) 5 SCC 136

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. Anita Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. v. Anita Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punit Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Neelanchal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Union of India and Another Vs P.K. Bhowmick and Another

T.Venkaiya Vs Accountant General of Cg. and Anr.

Jeevan Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Bhavna Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others