The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award of reinstatement without backwages, holding no interference warranted due to the worker's subsequent regularization and four years of continuous service pending litigation.
Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award maintained.
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. 14 of 2015
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (The petitioner no.1 was not a party before the learned Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner no.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Government through the Secretary of the concerned department)
2. The Executive Engineer R.B.C. Hasdeo Barrage, Water Resources Department, Rampur, Korba, District Korba, (CG)
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Barrage, Water Management Sub Division Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.)
---- Petitioners Versus
1. Fekin Bai D/o Heera Ram, aged about 50 Years R/o Purani Basti Darri, PS Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba, (CG).
---- Respondents
For Petitioner-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
08.09.2021
1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 26.08.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Korba in Case No. 22/ID Act/2013/(Ref.). Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without backwages.
2. The respondent-worker involved in the present case is said to have employed as daily wage worker under the petitioners from 01.04.1990 to 28.02.1995. Thereafter the worker was discontinued
-2-
from service abruptly. The worker raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter stood referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence which have been brought on record on either side, vide impugned award has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the respondent-worker is entitled for the benefit of reinstatement without backwages.
3. The impugned award dated 26.08.2014 was challenged by way of present writ petition which was filed by the petitioners on 21.01.2015.
4. From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition itself it shows that the respondent-worker was reinstated by the authorities as early as on 11.09.2017 and from 11.09.2017 onward the worker has been continuously working under the petitioners.
5. Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing, counsel for the respondent-worker submits that pending the writ petition before this Court, the State Government itself has vide order dated 08.03.2019 regularized the services of the worker and since then he is working as a regular employee under the petitioners.
6. Given the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the respondentworker, particularly taking note of the fact that the respondent-worker stood reinstated in service pending the writ petition, the equity stands in favour of the worker who firstly was reinstated immediately by the petitioners w.e.f. 11.09.2017 and since then he has put in more than 4 years of continuous service and meanwhile he also stands regularized under the petitioners. Moreover, by efflux of time the respondent-worker has also served the petitioners for quite some
-3-
time and is at the fag end of his service career where only few years of service is left for her retirement.
7. Under the circumstances, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition holding that the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at this stage in the light of subsequent development that has transpired particularly in favour of the respondent-worker.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court.
Sd/- ( P. Sam Koshy ) Judge
Rohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Labour Court award warrants interference in light of the worker's subsequent regularization and continuous service.
Whether the subsequent regularization by the State Government affects the impugned award of reinstatement without backwages.
Whether the equity favours the worker who has put in several years of continuous service after reinstatement pending the writ.
State Of Chhattisgarh
Executive Engineer R.B.C. Hasdeo Barrage
Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Barrage
Fekin Bai
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
