Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Mela Ram And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2023WPL/280/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition challenged a Labour Court award granting reinstatement to four daily wage workers without backwages. The High Court, relying on testimonial evidence and precedent, upheld the award, noting the workers had served for approximately 12 years and found no infirmity in the Labour Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected as devoid of substance, upholding the Labour Court's award of reinstatement without backwages.

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Mela Ram And… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (L) No. 280 of 2014

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

(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 propoer course is to implead the State Government through the Secretary of the concerned department)

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

---- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mela Ram, S/o Parshottam Yadav, aged about 41 years,

¶11

Santram, S/o Manbodhi Yadav, Aged about 42 years,

¶12

Mahendra Chandel, S/o Late Bihari Lal, aged about -42 years,

¶13

Ubhay Ram, S/o Hemuram Chandel, aged about 38 years,

¶14

No. 1 to 4 all R/o Village Kohalatola, P.S. Chhuikhadan, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶15

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Addl. Adv. General For Respondents No. 1 to 4 on caveat.

¶18

: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

14-06-2023

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage.

¶24

Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned award dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) under Industrial Dispute Act in Case No. 192/I.D. Act Ref./2012. Vide impugned award the Labour Court has granted relief of the reinstatement to the respondents No. 1 to 4/ workers without backwages.

¶25

Facts of the case in brief, necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition, are that respondents No. 1 to 4 were the workers engaged as Daily Wage basis by the petitioners herein at Chhindari Dam, Canal Anicut in the year 1994. The respondents No. 1 to 4 / workers continued to discharge their duties as daily wage employee uptil August, 2008, when abruptly services of aforesaid respondents workers were discontinued.

¶26

Subsequent to the discontinuance of service of respondents workers raised industrial dispute before the State Labour Commissioner, who in turn, referred the matter to the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon where the case was registered as Case No. 192/I.D. Act Ref./2012.

¶27

After the pleadings were complete and recording of evidence of both the side, the learned Labour Court vide its impugned award dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) held that the discontinuance of services of the respondents workers were in total contravention to the provisions envisaged under Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act and discontinuance amounts to illegal termination and, therefore, by partly allowing their claim, learned Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement without backwages to respondents No. 1 to 4 / workers. This award is under challenge in the present

¶28

¶29

writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the State/petitioners would submit that learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the substantive appointment of respondents No. 1 to 4/ workers was purely on daily wage basis. It is also contended that the respondents workers herein have approached the Labour Court on belated stage and further the cause of action would be different for the four respondents herein and the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the different cause of action of different labours in a single claim. It is also submitted that the respondents workers have failed to produce any document to ascertain the fact as to when their services were engaged by the Department, as no appointment order has been issued in their favour. It is also submitted that from the evidence, which has come on record there also does not seem to by any documentary proof to establish that each of the respondents workers had completed more than 240 days continuously before discontinuance from service and for this reason finding of the labour Court is erroneous.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 workers would submit that respondents No. 1 to 4 were working as daily wager with the petitioners - Department since 03.05.1994 and they were disengaged from 30.08.2008 only on the basis of oral direction / order. It is further submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court is well merited and reasoned order, which does not call for any interference by this Court in the instant petition. It is also submitted that similarly situated 13 daily wage employees of Water Resources Department have been granted relief by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021 passed in WPL No. 5181 of 2011 and case in hand is identical to that case, hence, same relief may also be granted to the respondents No. 1 to 4 in the instant case.

¶32

¶33

Having heard the contention putforth by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record as well as impugned award (Annexure P-1) would show that respondents No. 1 to 4 workers had given their evidence, in which, they have categorically stated that they were workers engaged by petitioners – Department since 1994 to 2008. They have also stated that in the year 2008, they were abruptly discontinued by the petitioners – Department from their services.

¶34

Although the petitioners -Department has also examined Mr. P.S. Banjare, S.D.O. as PW-1 (Annexure P-5) in support of their case, but he has not filed any documentary evidence for rebuttal of documents filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/ workers, rather he has admitted in his cross-examination that respondents No. 1 to 4 had worked in muster roll and payment in this regard had been made by the Water Resources Department. Deposition of respondents No. 1 to 4 have been well supported by documents adduced by them as well as it also gets support from the statement made by Mr. P.S. Banjare, S.D.O. in his cross-examination. Perusal of the impugned order and evidence available on record show that learned trial Court has considered all aspects of the case to record its finding.

¶35

Considering oral and documentary evidence available on the record, objections raised by learned counsel appearing for the State/ petitioners is not found to be sustainable in view of the evidence available on record.

¶36

It is pertinent to mention here that similarly situated workers of same Department has been granted relief by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2021 passed in WPL No. 5181 of 2011.

¶37

Thus, considering the overall facts & circumstances of the case, evidence adduced by the parties and totality of the case, if the Labour Court has held that respondents No. 1 to 4 were daily wage

¶38

¶39

workers; on the basis of evidence led by the parties, same cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the evidence on record.

¶40

In the given circumstances, impugned award does not suffer any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court and the principles of equity is also in favour of respondents /workers, who have prior to the dispute as also subsequent to the dispute have put in about 12 years of service and subsequently they have been reinstated in service from 2014.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

¶44

Amit/-

¶45

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Mela Ram And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. v. Mela Ram And Ors.

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

Ramphal Verma Vs Praphulla Kumar Behura

Smt. P. Bhagya Laxmi Vs Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi

Vinay Kumar Vs Ganpati

Janki Bai Vs the Sub Area Manager

Smt Gayatri Adil Vs Madhu Manwani

Smt. Ishwari (Dead) through Lrs Kola Raju Vs General Manager (Personnel)