Partly allowed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramchand and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC22 Nov 2018WPL/7237/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes two conflicting Labour Court awards passed on nearly identical facts regarding termination of daily wage workers. The Court remits the matter for a fresh award as it was improper for the same authority to arrive at contradictory conclusions on similar evidence without reasons.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Labour Court awards dated 11.04.2008 and 20.05.2008 and remitting the matter for a fresh award within three months.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ramchand and Anr. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 7237 of 2008

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶6

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Head Works Sub Division, Water Resources Department, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Ramchand, S/o. Inaram Sahu, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶10

Santosh, S/o. Siyaram Sahu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶11

Lakhan, S/o. Nanku, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Gardbanja.

¶12

Amrut, S/o. Pardeshi, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Gardbanja.

¶13

Hannu, S/o. Peru Sahu, Aged about 22 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶14

Nirbhay, S/o. Chandan, Aged about 29 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶15

Deepak, S/o. Bahalram Verma, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶16

Kamal, S/o. Manrakhan, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶17

Rajesh, S/o. Babulal, Aged about 31 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶18

Satish, S/o. Ramswarup, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶19

Rampyara, S/o. Gendukanwar, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Gardbanja.

¶20

Manikram, S/o. Sunderram, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶21

Dhanus, S/o. Mukundram Sahu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶22

Santuram, S/o. Balwa, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶23

Kailash, S/o. Jageshwar, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶24

Santkumar, S/o. Balwa, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶25

Bhagwat, S/o. Charan, Aged about 31 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶26

Chhannu, S/o. Pheru Sahu, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶27

Ram Prakash, S/o. Budharu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶28

Faguram, S/o. Bharat, Aged about 29 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶29

Nilkanth, S/o. Lakhan, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Kohlatola.

¶30

Mansingh, S/o. Bharat, Aged about 18 years, R/o. Dokarbhata.

¶31

Jagdish, S/o. Shatrughan, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Dokarbhata. All are R/o. Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶32

---Respondents

¶33

For State/Petitioners : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate

¶34

-2-

¶35

WP227 No. 1023 of 2010

¶36

Hariram, S/o. Mr. Paltan Janghel, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶37

Krishna, S/o. Mr. Paltan Janghel, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶38

Girdhari Lal, S/o. Mr. Pusau, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶39

Chamru, S/o. Anandram, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶40

Rekhchand, S/o. Budhram, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶41

Naresh Patel, S/o. Manthir, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶42

Dhuyram, S/o. Anandram, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶43

Bhukhan, S/o. Sudheram, Aged about 42 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶44

Mayapatel, S/o. Chabilal, Aged about 39 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶45

Rajuram, S/o. Jethuram, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Village Dokrabhata, Tahsil Khairagarh, Thana Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶46

---- Petitioners

¶47

Versus

¶48

Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chuikhadan, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶49

Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Piparriha Canal Work, Khairaarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶50

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (under I.D. Act), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶51

---Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate

¶52

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

-3-

22/11/2018

These are two writ petitions, where the facts being similar, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶57

In WPL No. 7237 of 2008, the challenge is to the award dated 11.04.2008, passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in case No. 16/I.D./2007 (Ref.). In WP227 No. 1023/2010, the challenge is to the award dated 20.05.2008, passed by the same Labour Court in case No. 18/I.D./2007 (Ref.).

¶58

The facts of the case is that the private respondents in WPL No.7237/2008 and the petitioners in WP227 No. 1023/2010 were all working as daily wage employees with the respondents at the Pipariya Project of the Water Resources Department at Chhuikhadan. The contention of these workers is that they were engaged by the department somewhere during the period between 1988 to 1994 and all the workers continued to work with the department till 2005-2006, when their services were abruptly discontinued by the department

¶59

The workers had raised an industrial dispute before the State Government challenging the illegal discontinuance and the State Government vide order dated 01.02.2007 made a reference in both the cases to the Labour Court for adjudication of the following terms of reference:

¶60

“ Whether the termination of the workers, whose names are reflected in Annexure P/1 is proper, legal and justified, if not, what relief they are entitled for and what directions can be given to the department in this regard? ”

¶61

-4-

¶62

The two references were registered as case No. 16/I.D./2007 (Ref.) and 18/I.D./2007 (Ref.). During the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the witnesses were examined on either side and finally the Labour Court in case No. 16/I.D./2007 (Ref.) answered the reference on 11.04.2008 and held that the discontinuance of the workers were not either illegal or unjustified and therefore held that these workers are not entitled for any relief.

¶63

At the same time, on same set of facts and evidence in respect of the same nature of employment and the discontinuance also being of the same period, the same Labour Court and the same Presiding Officer while deciding case No. 18/I.D./2007 (Ref.) vide order dated 20.05.2008 takes an entirely different view and drawing an adverse inference against the department, allowed the reference and ordered for reinstatement without back wages.

¶64

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for either side that in compliance to the award dated 20.05.2008, the department is already complying with the provisions of Section 17B pending the petition before this Court.

¶65

The contention of the State counsel while challenging the award dated 20.05.2008 is that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court is erroneous to the extent that firstly it has wrongly drawn an adverse inference, whereas it should have considered the fact that the burden of proof always was that upon the workers to have cogently led sufficient evidence to prove their case independently without the assistance being taken from the department or the evidence of the departmental witnesses. It was also the contention of the State counsel that in any case, there was no substantive right created in

¶66

-5-

¶67

favour of the workers as undisputedly they were all working as daily wage employees, whose services are engaged purely on the availability of the work and as such there was no indefeasible right created in favour of the workers and thus prayed for the setting aside of the said award dated 20.05.2008.

¶68

So far as the workers challenging the award dated 11.04.2008 is concerned, it was the primary contention of the counsel that on the same set of facts and evidence and the nature of employment also being similar and the discontinuance being also of similar nature, the same Labour Court and the same Presiding Officer in a reference, which was also of identical nature has answered the reference in favour of the workers drawing an adverse inference against the department, whereas the same Court has taken an entirely contrary view while passing the award dated 11.04.2008. Thus the award on this ground alone deserves to be set-aside and the claims for similar relief to that the workers in whose favour the award was passed on 20.05.2008.

¶69

It was the further contention of the counsel for the workers in WP227 No. 1023/2010 that the workers in fact had led evidence in respect of they being engaged by the department continuously between 1988 to 2005. That they had also produced a copy of the muster roles, before the Labour Court, which were available with the workers. The departmental witness thereafter has admitted the employment part also, yet the Labour Court has not considered this aspect and has answered the reference against the workers. It was the further contention of the counsel for the workers that in any case, in either of the writ petitions, undisputedly before discontinuation of the

¶70

-6-

¶71

services of the workers, there was a clear non-compliance of the statutory/mandatory provisions under Chapter-V of the Industrial Disputes Act, more particularly in respect of the fact that there was no retrenchment compensation paid to these workers at any point of time before their services were discontinued and the finding of the Labour Court to this extent vide the award dated 20.05.2008 is therefore bad in law and deserves to be set-aside/quashed.

¶72

Having considered the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, what is undisputed so far as the factual matrix of the case is concerned, is that these workers in these two writ petitions were similarly placed and were working at the same place under the same employer during the same period till they were discontinued, also during the same period. The two groups of workers had simultaneously raised a dispute before the State Government and the State Government had made two references on the same date i.e. on 01.02.2007, which were referred to the Labour Court, Rajnandgoan and where both these references were registered as case No. 16/I.D./2007(Ref.) and 18/I.D./2007(Ref.).

¶73

What is also not in dispute is the fact that the workers as well as the management/department had adduced the same set of evidence in both these reference case and the witnesses on behalf of the department were also common. Inspite of the fact that things were of identical nature, for reasons best known, this Court finds it surprising that the same Labour Court, the same Presiding Officer in a gap of just about one month’s time, decides the reference in both the cases taking an entirely contradictory view on the same set of facts.

¶74

-7-

¶75

The award thus is not at all appreciable and it appears that the Presiding Officer while deciding the two cases has not kept in mind that the facts of the two cases and that it has already taken a view on an earlier occasion and yet has decided to take a different view while it ought to have given reasons, as to why it intended to take a different view, than what it had earlier taken while deciding the matter on 11.04.2008 in case No. 16/I.D./2007 (Ref.).

¶76

Without further delving into the matter, this Court is of the opinion that since the facts in both these writ petitions, so far as the dispute raised by the respective workers before the Labour Court being identical, it would not be proper at this juncture for this Court to adjudicate upon a matter, where there are conflicting views in the same set of facts by the same Court. Ends of justice would meet if the two orders are set-aside maintaining status-quo as it exists today referring the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh award to be passed taking into consideration the entire factual matrix and the evidences that have been adduced by either side.

¶77

Given the said facts, the two awards dated 11.04.2008 as also the 20.05.2008 in the two disputes are set-aside/quashed and the matter stands remitted back. Since both the parties have already adduced evidence, this matter is being remitted back to the Labour Court only for passing of a fresh award on merits without being influenced from any of the findings made by the Labour Court on the previous occasion, as also by the findings given by this Court while setting aside the two orders.

¶78

-8-

¶79

The Labour Court is directed to pass the order independently taking into consideration the evidences, which have come in both these writ petitions.

¶80

Both these writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. Considering the fact that the disputes are of old nature, it is expected that the Labour Court would pass an order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records.

¶81

The Registry is directed to ensure that the record is sent back to the concerned Labour Court forthwith preferably within a period of 14 days.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶84

Ved

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramchand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramchand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v. Walter Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Nohar Singh Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Bhadoriya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Devarchan Malakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Prem Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Sonchand Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.