Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Heeralal Yadu Vs Smt. Itwara — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

Home
Chhattisgarh HC
2016
Heeralal Yadu Vs Smt. ItwaraHeeralal Yadu v. Smt. Itwara

Dismissed

Heeralal Yadu v. Smt. Itwara

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2016WPL/50/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition filed challenging an ex parte award and an order dismissing an application to set it aside. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable as the Employees' Compensation Act provided a statutory alternative remedy via appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and an application to set aside the dismissal of Order 9 Rule 13

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and an application to set aside the dismissal of Order 9 Rule 13

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when there is a statutory alternative remedy because an award under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is appealable under +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

An award passed under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is appealable under Section 30. In such circumstances, an alternative statutory remedy exists. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed with directions to file an appeal within 30 days.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPL No. 50 of 2016

Heeralal Yadu S/o Late Sonu Yadu, Aged About 81 Years R/o Village Kodwa, Th. Bhatapara, Post Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Itwara W/o Late Myaram Satnami, Aged About 36 Years

Kopchand S/o Late Myaram Satnami Aged About 22 Years

Roopchand S/o Late Myaram Satnami Aged About 18 Years

Ku. Poolmani, S/o Late Mayram Satnami, Aged About 8 Years

Through Legal Guardian of respondent No.2 to 4 Mother Smt. Itwara Bai W/o Late Mayaram Satnami,

All are R/o Village Kodwa Bhatapara, Village & Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

The Commissioner, For Employees Compensation, Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

01/04/2016

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court on 10-12-2015 and 27-4-2015.

On 27-4-2015 the Labour Court passed the ex parte award. Petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte award was dismissed on 10-12-2015.

The award passed under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is appealable under Section 30 thereof, therefore, there being statutory alternative remedy the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may file an appeal against the main award and also praying for setting aside the order whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed, within 30 days from today.

Sd/-

Judge

Prashant Kumar Mishra

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when there is a statutory alternative remedy because an award under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is appealable under
2.
What is the disposal of the writ petition challenging the Labour Court order.

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (Central Act 8 of 1923)2230
The Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)Order 9, Rule 13

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Heeralal Yadu
respondent
Smt. Itwara
respondent
Kopchand
respondent
Roopchand
respondent
Ku. Poolmani
respondent
The Commissioner, For Employees Compensation

Coram

AI extract

Prashant Kumar Mishra

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Chhattisgarh HC
Decided on: 1 Apr 2016 · April
Registered: 10 Feb 2016
Case no.: WPL/50/2016
CNR: CGHC010047752016
Topic: Pension and Retirement Benefits
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Disposal: DISMISSED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Prashant Kumar Mishra

Pyare Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh
31 Mar 2016
Jainath Dewangan and Anr. Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank andANR.
31 Mar 2016
D.P.Pandey Vs State
31 Mar 2016
Radheshyam Chandraker and Ors. Vs Nagar Palika Parishad and Ors.
1 Apr 2016
B.P. Sharma Vs State
1 Apr 2016
R.k. Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
1 Apr 2016

Cite this judgement

Heeralal Yadu v. Smt. Itwara, WPL/50/2016 (CG), decided on 1 April 2016.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (Central Act 8 of 1923)22 · 30
The Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)Order 9, Rule 13

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Prashant Kumar Mishra

Parties & counsel