Dismissed

State of C.G. and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Thakur

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2021WPL/7413/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of and maintained the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without backwages. The court noted the respondent was already reinstated and, subsequently, regularized by the State, warranting no judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, maintaining the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without backwages.

State of C.G. and Anr. Vs Krishna… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (L) No. 7413 of 2010

¶5

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). The petitioner No.1 was not a party before the Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner No.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Govt. through the Secretary of the concerned department.

¶6

2. The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur (CG)

¶7

---Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Krishna Kumar Thakur S/o late Dayaram Thakur, R/o in front of the house of Dr. Devras, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur (CG).

¶10

---Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner-State : Ms. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Shri S. P. Kale, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶13

21.06.2021

¶14

1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No.30/IDA/ 2005 (Ref.). Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without backwages.

¶15

2. The respondent-worker involved in the present case is said to have employed as daily wage worker under the petitioners during 18.08.1989 to 03.06.1995. Thereafter he was discontinued from service abruptly. The worker thereafter 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

¶16

-2-

¶17

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.

¶18

3. The impugned award dated 31.03.2010 was challenged by way of present writ petition which was filed by the petitioners on 09.12.2010.

¶19

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 07.06.2010 and from 07.06.2010 onward the worker has been continuously working under the petitioners.

¶20

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 14.02.2020 regularized the services of the worker and since then he is working as a regular employee under the petitioners.

¶21

6. Given the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the respondentworker, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner 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. 07.06.2010 and since then he has put in a decade 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 time and is at the fag end of his service career where only few years of service is left for his retirement.

¶22

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

¶23

-3-

¶24

warrant any interference at this stage in the light of subsequent development that has transpired particularly in favour of the respondent-worker.

¶25

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶26

Sd/- ( P. Sam Koshy ) Judge

¶27

Khatai

State of C.G. and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of C.G. and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarita Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravichandar Moorthy Dakshina Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Ramkumar Rajwade And Anr.

Abdul Kadir Khan Vs Chief Election Officer

Narayan Netam Vs Chief Election Officer