The High Court dismissed four writ petitions filed by the State challenging Labour Court awards. The Court held that it could not interfere as the Labour Court's findings were not perverse, noting the reinstatement of workers had already occurred.
All four writ petitions were dismissed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No.7235 of 2008
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
WPL No.7236 of 2008
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
2
----Respondents
WPL No.7239 of 2008
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
Respondents No. 7 to 10 all are R/o village Kohlatola, Tahsil and Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3
Respondents No. 17 and 18 are R/o village Mahratola, Tahsil and Thana Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
----Respondents
WPL No.7242 of 2008
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project, – Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tahsil and – Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
4
All are R/o village Kulikasa, Tahsil and Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
----Respondents
| For petitioner/State | : | Shri S.P.Kale, Dy.A.G. |
|---|---|---|
| For respondents | : | Shri Animesh Verma on behalf of Shri Ashish |
| Shrivastava, Advocate. |
Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
07/02/2018
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.
either side also being similar so also the ground of challenge in all these four
Writ Petitions being the same, this Court proceeds to decide these Writ
Petitions by a common judgment.
5
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
6
Labour Court, Rajnandgaon which are under challenge in the present four Writ Petitions.
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.
the Writ Petitions and that these workers have subsequent to their
7
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.
8
could had been established and therefore the Court has drawn an adverse
inference against the department.
9
“ 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:
'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.'
(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines [AIR 1958 SC
923], AIR p.928, para 10.) ”
Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited reported in (2014) 11 SCC 85.
10
not require any interference at this juncture.
to be and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
JUDGE
Sumit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Labour Court's award reinstating daily wage workers in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.Explained¶9
(2010) 3 SCC 192 · Who else cites this
State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold MinesExplained¶9
(AIR 1958 SC 923) · Who else cites this
Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries LimitedExplained¶9
(2014) 11 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Executive Engineer, Piparia Project
Sunderlal S/o Budhu Lodhi
Manik S/o Umedi Lodhi
Vishram S/o Budhu Gond
Manharan S/o Umendi Lodhi
Mahendra Kumar S/o Shivratan Sahu
P. Sam Koshy
Sumit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
