Disposed

NTPC Limited through General Manager v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Nov 2017WPC/2671/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding the petitioner's coverage under the ESIC Act. The court extended an existing interim order in favour of the petitioner for 60 days to allow time for the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Interim order in favour of petitioner extended for 60 days; liberty granted to object to impugned order before competent authority.

NTPC Limited through General Manager Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No.2671 of 2008

¶5

NTPC Limited, Through General Manager, Korba Super Thermal Power Station, P.O. Vikas Bhawan, Jaminipali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi

¶9

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Ministry & Labour, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Through the Director General, New Delhi

¶11

4. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chhattisgarh, Regional Office, 18, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

5. Assistant Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Chhattisgarh, Regional Office, 18, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Dr.N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.D.Guru, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Dhiraj Wankhde, G.A. For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr.Pradeep Saxena, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

08/11/2017

¶17

1. Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.B.D.Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is not covered by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, which has not been considered and impugned order dated 3.4.2008 has been passed.

¶18

2. Mr.Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5, would submit that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the objection.

¶19

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to make an objection

¶20

2 before the competent authority against the said order in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from today and within three months it will be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶21

4. In this case, interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner since 9.5.2008, therefore, it would be expedient to direct that such an interim order will be operative for the above-mentioned period of 60 days.

¶22

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No cost(s).

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶25

B/-

NTPC Limited through General Manager v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

NTPC Limited through General Manager v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

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

Central Bank of India Vs Smt. Usha Devi Agrawal and Ors.

C.G. State Elelctricity Board Vs C.G. Human Rights Commission and 3 Ors.

M/s Janta Industries Village Singarpur, District Rajnandgaon, Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Shivcharan Pandey and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kewal Chand Gaikwad Vs M.D.,Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Dy.Dir.Basic Seed Mul.and Tra.Cen.and Ors. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.