Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Hirauram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2018WPL/7236/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four writ petitions filed by the State challenging Labour Court awards declaring daily wage workers' termination illegal. Finding no perversity or legal error, the Court held the order proper as the State later reinstated workers. Cases cited include Harjinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

The four writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the Labour Court's awards de facto.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Hirauram and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No.7235 of 2008

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sunderlal S/o Budhu Lodhi, aged about 50 years, R/o Bajguda, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶9

Manik S/o Umedi Lodhi, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶10

Vishram S/o Budhu Gond, aged about 29 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶11

Manharan S/o Umendi Lodhi, aged about 32 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶12

Mahendra Kumar S/o Shivratan Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

WPL No.7236 of 2008

¶15

State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶16

---- Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

Hirauram S/o Shri Rama, aged about 44 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶19

Itwari S/o Jumuk, aged about 45 years, R/o village Amlidih, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶20

Ravilal S/o Khorbahara, aged about 42 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶21

Netram S/o Ramnath, aged about 40 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶22

Ramkumar S/o Sonhar, aged about 34 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶23

¶24

Samilya S/o Ramnath, aged about 35 years, R/o Kulikasa, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶25

Fagguram S/o Shriramji Lodhi, aged about 30 years, R/o Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶26

Ramvilas S/o Ramadhar, aged about 25 years, R/o Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶27

Prafull S/o Purushhotam, aged about 43 years, R/o Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶28

Chainsingh S/o Budhram, aged about 25 years, R/o Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶29

Dhansay S/o Paran, aged about 28 years, R/o village Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶30

Santram S/o Uderam, aged about 27 years, R/o village Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶31

Tijau S/o Shri Bisahu, aged about 39 years, R/o village Kanimera, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

WPL No.7239 of 2008

¶34

State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶35

---- Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

Ramavtar S/o Bagas Ram, aged about 46 years.

¶38

Ramdular S/o Parasram, aged about 34 years.

¶39

Krishna S/o Dheluram, aged about 38 years.

¶40

Radhelal S/o Jagnuram, aged about 38 years.

¶41

Naresh S/o Hemlal, aged about 30 years.

¶42

Satrughan S/o Prabhuram, aged about 48 years.

¶43

Dharamraj S/o Late Kashiram, aged about 38 years.

¶44

Kanta S/o Laxman, aged about 31 years.

¶45

Krishna S/o Late Pardeshi, aged about 40 years.

¶46

Ajay S/o Phool Singh, aged about 31 years.

¶47

Respondents No. 7 to 10 all are R/o village Kohlatola, Tahsil and Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶48

¶49

Bulaku S/o Chainsingh, aged about 52 years.

¶50

Deendayal S/o Motira, aged about 32 years.

¶51

Choturam S/o Prabhuram, aged about 41 years.

¶52

Pyarelal S/o Pardeshi, aged about 32 years.

¶53

Manbahal S/o Dhanauram, aged about 44 years.

¶54

Sohanram S/o Pardeshiram, aged about 30 years.

¶55

Respondents No. 11 to 16 are R/o village Birutola, Tahsil and Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶56

Rajkumar S/o Bodhiram, aged about 20 years.

¶57

Dhanuram S/o Mansaram, aged about 32 years.

¶58

Respondents No. 17 and 18 are R/o village Mahratola, Tahsil and Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶59

----Respondents

¶60

WPL No.7242 of 2008

¶61

State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶62

---- Petitioner

¶63

Versus

¶64

Narayan S/o Dayal, aged about 35 years.

¶65

Kumlal S/o Shri Thakur, aged about 41 years.

¶66

Beniram S/o Shri Roopsingh, aged about 38 years.

¶67

Fagua S/o Shriramnath, aged about 34 years.

¶68

Santram S/o Jageshwar, aged about 45 years.

¶69

Bhairam S/o Shri Roopsingh, aged about 38 years.

¶70

Arjun S/o Khorbohra, aged about 37 years.

¶71

Manohardas S/o Sadhudas, aged about 40 years.

¶72

Laxman S/o Ganesh, aged about 45 years.

¶73

Parasram S/o Mahangu, aged about 41 years.

¶74

Kanwalsingh S/o Sawant, aged about 42 years.

¶75

Kirtan S/o Agamdas, aged about 41 years.

¶76

Sukhdev S/o Shri Runguram, aged about 33 years.

¶77

Ashok S/o Shri Kisun, aged about 35 years.

¶78

¶79

Prabhu S/o Hinsa, aged about 38 years.

¶80

All are R/o village Kulikasa, Tahsil and Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶81

----Respondents

¶82

For petitioner/State	:	Shri S.P.Kale, Dy.A.G.
For respondents	:	Shri Animesh Verma on behalf of Shri Ashish
		Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶83

Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶84

Order on Board

¶85

07/02/2018

¶86

These are the four writ petitions preferred by the State Government

¶87

challenging the order of the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in four different reference cases referred by the State Government i.e. Case Nos. 9/ID Act/2007 (Ref.), 30/ID Act/2007 (Ref.), 31/ID Act/2007 (Ref.) and 32/ID Act/2007 (Ref.) decided on 28/04/2008, 10/04/2008, 06/05/2008 and 06/05/2008 respectively.

¶88

Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court have answered the reference in favour of the workers and have declared the discontinuance of employment of the respondents/workers as an illegal termination and ordered for the relief of reinstatement without backwages.

¶89

As the facts of each of the cases are almost similar, the evidence led on

¶90

either side also being similar so also the ground of challenge in all these four

¶91

Writ Petitions being the same, this Court proceeds to decide these Writ

¶92

Petitions by a common judgment.

¶93

¶94

The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the case is that, the workers in the four Writ Petitions were engaged as a daily wage workers by the petitioners on different dates in between 1982-2005. Subsequently, there services were abruptly discontinued by the department. Before discontinuance of the service, the department did not issue any notice, nor was any sort of compensation or salary paid in view of the notice to these workers.

¶95

All the workers had raised four separate industrial dispute before the State Government which in turn made four separate terms of reference for adjudication before the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. While referring the matter to the Labour Court, following terms of reference was framed for adjudication :-

¶96

“ Whether the termination of service of the workers whose name is reflected in Annexure-P/1 was proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief they would be entitled for and what directions can be issued to the non-applicant in this relation? ”

¶97

After the four cases were separately registered before the Labour Court,

¶98

the evidences were recorded and subsequently, vide the impugned award in all the four cases, the Labour Court held that, the discontinuance of service of these respondents amounts to illegal termination. The reference was answered in favour of the respondents/workers granting them the relief of reinstatement without backwages. It is these four awards passed by the

¶99

¶100

Labour Court, Rajnandgaon which are under challenge in the present four Writ Petitions.

¶101

The contention of the State counsel is that, the order of reinstatement

¶102

by the Labour Court is per se illegal as the respondents did not have any substantial right in their favour seeking for the relief of reinstatement with a consequential relief. According to the State counsel, the status of the workers were that of a daily wage worker and it is well settled by now that, a daily wager as such does not have an indefeasible right in his favour to claim anything from the service rendered as a daily wage worker. It was also the contention of the State counsel that, the impugned award is also bad in law for the reason that, the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, all the workers involved in the dispute in the four Writ Petitions have not led any evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate their contention and that only a couple of workers in each of the cases have been examined and their evidences have been accepted in representative capacity while granting the relief to these workers and thus prayed for setting aside of the award in each of the Writ Petitions.

¶103

Per contra, the counsel for the respondents opposing the appeal submits that, the order under challenge is a well reasoned and speaking order and that there was no scope of any interference available and thus prayed for the rejection of the petition. According the counsel for the respondents, in compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner/State Government has reinstated each of the workers involved in

¶104

the Writ Petitions and that these workers have subsequent to their

¶105

¶106

reinstatement also have by now put in about 10 years of service uninterruptedly and therefore on the ground of equity also, the impugned award deserves to be maintained. It was also the contention of the counsel for the respondents that a witness examined on behalf of the petitioner/State Government before the Labour Court itself has accepted the fact that, these workers were engaged by the petitioners on daily wages and that they had worked for a considerable period of time and since the finding of the Labour Court is based on the evidence which have come on record, the petitions deserve to be rejected.

¶107

Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of record what is reflected is that a couple of workers in each of these Writ Petitions have examined themselves on behalf of all the workers who had raised the industrial dispute and in their deposition they have categorically taken the name of the other workers also who had worked with them and who also stood discontinued from service leading to the raising of the industrial dispute.

¶108

Further, on behalf of the department, the Special Divisional Officer-Shri O.P.Chandra was examined in all the four cases and he in his deposition has accepted the fact that, during the course of construction of the canal, workers were being engaged by the department and for which muster rolls were also maintained. However, in spite of specific requests and order being made, the department could not and did not produce the muster rolls maintained during the said period with which the engagement of the workers

¶109

¶110

could had been established and therefore the Court has drawn an adverse

¶111

inference against the department.

¶112

The petitioner/State Government even during the course of hearing of these petitions also is not in a position to disprove the finding of the Labour Court by leading any documentary evidence to contradict the finding arrived at by the Labour Court.

¶113

It is also settled position of law that under the writ jurisdiction, this court would not interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court as if sitting as an Appellate Authority particularly in a cases under ID Act. The interference would be only to a limited extent, when there is perversity in the finding arrived at by the Court below or the Court has exercised its jurisdiction beyond the powers conferred upon it. The High Court can interfere with factual aspect only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in appreciating the evidence or the Court has committed a grave error of law in coming to its conclusions.

¶114

The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in examining the correctness of the order of the Labour Court was confined to errors in the decision making process and not on the merits of the decision itself. This Court does not find any infirmity in the decision making process warranting interference.

¶115

The Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192 in paragraph 21 held as under:-

¶116

¶117

“ Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and /or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and others similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43- A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that:

¶118

'10. .... The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.'

¶119

(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines [AIR 1958 SC

¶120

923], AIR p.928, para 10.) ”

¶121

This view has further been reiterated in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar

¶122

Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited reported in (2014) 11 SCC 85.

¶123

¶124

The State Government through the present writ petitions has failed to show either there being any perversity in the finding or the Court below having exceeded its jurisdiction. In the absence of the two, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court has to be accepted to be proper, legal and justified.

¶125

Another fact which is pertinent to mention that subsequent to the award passed, the State Government has also reinstated in service all the respondents and since then they are working. This all the more brings the equity in favour of the respondents and thus the order under challenge does

¶126

not require any interference at this juncture.

¶127