Petitioners challenged a Labour Court award reinstating daily wage workers without back wages. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the award lawful as it was based on admitted facts and statutory violations.
Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award of reinstatement without back wages upheld.
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, BILASPUR
WPL No. 281 of 2014
1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawna, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raiur, Cg, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Narad Ram And Ors. S/o Kartik Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2. Harish Chandra S/o Inaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3. Chatur Ram S/o Dukhuram Chandel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4. Khelan S/o Shobhit Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5. Pitamber S/o Dharmu Netam R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
6. Khemchand S/o Ratan Ram Chandel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kohalatola, Ps Chhuikhadan, Tah Chhuikhadan, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
7. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Dist Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
For State/ Petitioners : Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. For Respondent-Workers : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
01.09.2021
1. Aggrieved by the award Annexure P/1 dated 30.05.2014 in case No. MP/ 216/I.A. Act Reference/ 2012, the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages.
2. The admitted factual matrix from the pleadings as is evident is that the respondent-workers were engaged by the petitioners herein as daily wage workers and all the respondent-workers were engaged during the period between 1999 to 2010, when abruptly the services of the respondent-workers were discontinued. While discontinuing the services, the respondents were not paid either retrenchment compensation or any notice was issued, neither were they paid any salary in lieu of notice. The services of the respondent-workers were also not discontinued on account of unsatisfactory work. The respondents immediately had raised a dispute invoking the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and the matter got referred to the Labour Court at Rajnandgaon. After the parties were directed to submit their statement of claim and the written statement, the matter was put to evidence and all the workers entered appearance before the Labour Court and gave their evidences and on behalf of the petitionerestablishment one Shri P.L. Banjare was examined. After due consideration of the evidences and the pleadings before the Labour Court, the matter was finally decided and the impugned award Annexure P/1 was passed on 30.05.2014. Vide the said order, the
3
Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the respondentworkers and granted the relief of reinstatement without back wages. It is this award which is now under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. A fact which has been revealed from the submissions put forth on either side is that the Labour Court's award was immediately complied with by the petitioners and all the workers were reinstated in service in September 2014 itself. Since then all the workers have been continuing in service till date, as such they have put in more than 7 years of service after the award of the labour Court.
4. The Labour Court in the course of examining the evidence that has come on records found that the Departmental witness namely Shri P.L. Banjare has in his evidence accepted from the documents available with the department, the employment of the respondent-workers. Moreover, the workers were also able to submit certain documents to prove their employment with the petitioners for the said period, between 1999 to 2010, like the copy of muster rolls etc.
5. In the aforegiven factual backdrop, it stands established that the finding given by the Labour Court is a finding of fact and is also a finding based upon the evidence which has been recorded on either side. From the evidence, it stands admittedly proved that the workers involved in the petition had initially worked under the petitioners for a period of around 11-12 years and subsequent to reinstatement that they have again put in around seven and a half years of services. Thus, all the workers by have now put in around 20 years of services, they have all crossed the age of 45 and thereby they would not be in a position to get further employment elsewhere. The equity also therefore
4
as on date lies in favour of the respondent-workers.
6. As regards the scope of interference it is by now well settled proposition of law that High Court under Article 226 would not be sitting over under Industrial Disputes Act as the Appellate Court. The High Court also would not conduct a thread bear enquiry to test the finding of facts arrived at by the labour Court while exercising the Writ Jurisdiction. The Scope of judicial review against the award of the labour Court is confined to finding which is perverse, a finding which is in excess of jurisdiction and a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record. In the instant case, the management witness i.e. the witness of the petitioner-establishment himself has admitted the employment part before the Labour Court. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court cannot be said to be in any manner perverse or contrary to evidence.
7. The scope of interference exercising the power of judicial review by the High Court is only in the event if the finding of the labour Court is a perverse finding or is one which is contrary to the evidence which has come on record.
8. In para 17 of (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 190 (Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India & Another), it has been held as under:-
9. Applying the same analogy and again reiterating the same in the case
5
of (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
vs. Bhurumal), it has been held in paragraph- 27 as under:-
10. 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:-
11. This view has further been reiterated in the case of “Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited” reported in (2014) 11 SCC 85.
12. Given the fact that this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the order of reinstatement by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
P. Sam Koshy Judge
J-
Sd/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without back wages.
Whether the termination of workers without notice or compensation violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India & AnotherApplied¶35
(2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 190 (Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India & Another)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BhurumalApplied¶38
(2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal)
Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.Referred¶41
(2010) 3 SCC 192 (Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.) · Who else cites this
Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries LimitedReferred¶44
(2014) 11 SCC 85 (Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources
Narad Ram
Harish Chandra
Chatur Ram
Khelan
Pitamber
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
