A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ appeal seeking regularization of employment applicants. The Court upheld the single judge's view that regularization was not tenable as retrenchment compensation was paid and most appellants had reached the age of superannuation.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 419 of 2016
(Arising out of the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2021 of 2005)
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri U.N.S. Deo, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice
22.10.2018
2
due compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was paid. In addition to that, the learned Single Judge also refused to give any direction relegating some of the Appellants to the Industrial Tribunal keeping in mind that most of them had reached the stage or age of superannuation.
“7. It is not the case of the petitioners that the scrutiny was made in an illegal manner and the findings are perverse. Although some certificates have been annexed to demonstrate that they were working prior of 31-12-1988, the respondents have categorically stated
3
that the official records do not contain proof of their working in the department prior to 31-12-1988. In such circumstances, this Court sitting under Article 226 would not embark on an enquiry like the trial Court or the Labour Court because doing so would require leading of oral evidence also.
4
of their life, no purpose would be served by giving a direction for their regularization, when many of them have already reached the age of superannuation and had not been in the employment of the State in any manner for the last 18 years.
Sd/Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether regularization of employment seekers who received retrenchment compensation can be directed under Article 226.
Whether the High Court can entertain regularization claims when appellants are near age of superannuation and have not been in service for many years.
Whether findings of the High Court are barred from being conclusive on questions of indemnity compensation discharge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kumar Kashyap and others
State of Chhattisgarh
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
