Dismissed

Surjeet Singh Sindhu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2022WA/657/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's order rejecting the writ petition. The Court held that since the grievance relates to a disputed question of fact regarding the notice of departmental enquiry, it falls within the domain of the Labour Court, making the alternative remedy viable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Surjeet Singh Sindhu Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

WA No. 657 of 2022

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

(Arising out of order dated 05.9.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3316/2020)

¶6

WA No. 657 of 2022

¶7

Surjeet Singh Sindhu S/o Late Harbhajan Singh Sindhu, Aged About 43 Years Working As Line Paricharak Category - H, Purena Zone, Nagar Sambhag Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Head Quarter At Gudiyari Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Office At New Purena Basti Road 33/11, Beside K.V. Upkendra Purena, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. City Circle - I, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant :- Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State :- Ms. Astha Shukla, G.A. For Respondents No.2 to 4 :- Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Adv on behalf of Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Judgment on Board

¶15

¶16

WA No. 657 of 2022

¶17

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

¶18

05/12/2022

¶19

Heard.

¶20

The present appeal is against the order dated 05.9.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3316/2020 whereby petition filed by the appellant / petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') was dismissed.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that appellant who is working as Attended Grade-II (Paricharak Category-II) with Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, was imposed with punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 14.3.2018, departmental appeal having being preferred, the same was dismissed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. He would further submit that by taking into consideration the pleading and reply filed, the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the petition only on the ground of alternative remedy as the issue could have been decided in the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He refers to the relevant rules and would submit that no

¶23

¶24

WA No. 657 of 2022

¶25

opportunity of hearing was given /to the appellant before such penalty was imposed.

¶26

Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. They would submit that appellant can very well approach the alternate forum as the issue involves disputed question of facts and law and it is not clear as to whether the appellant did not avail the opportunity despite the notice of Departmental Enquiry and it can be clarified only during the hearing before the Labour Court.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company is Schedule industry as defined under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960. The respondent industry falls within item 3 of the Schedule as notified by the State of Chhattisgarh and the appellant being an employee as defined under Section 2(13) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act. The main grievance of the appellant is that the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was passed against him without giving opportunity of hearing. The fact

¶29

¶30

WA No. 657 of 2022

¶31

remains that issue which pertains to the fact that whether appellant was given any notice of Departmental Enquiry or whether he chose to not to appear or abstain, is the matter of evidence and it is a disputed question of fact. Its a unilateral submission of the appellant that he was not given opportunity of hearing, it cannot be accepted as a one way truth unless these issues are placed before the adjudicatory authority i.e., the Labour Court which is empowered to adjudicate the issue of like nature.

¶32

Consequently, there being disputed question of fact, the order of learned Single Judge whereby the appellant has been referred to avail the alternative remedy cannot be said to be improper.

¶33

In view of above, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶34

SD/SD/( Goutam Bhaduri ) ( N.K. Chandravanshi ) Judge Judge

¶35

Ayushi

Surjeet Singh Sindhu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Singh Sindhu v. State of Chhattisgarh

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. Vandana Verma Vs Gopiram Verma

Mohd. Kutubuddin Ansari Vs Smt. Ranju Singh

Shiv Kumar Vs Irfan Surya

Santosh Kumar Banjare Vs Indu Banjare

Guha Singh Vs Smt. Kiran Jangde

Gendram Nirala Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited