Dismissed

C.G. Infrasturcture Devl. Corp. v. Thakur Prasad Singh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Aug 2023WPL/3952/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging orders that awarded backwages to a respondent who had voluntarily retired. The Court held that voluntary retirement does not bar the entitlement to legitimately awarded backwages and the lower courts were in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no specific relief granted other than upholding the illegality of the rival claim.

C.G. Infrasturcture Devl. Corp. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (L) No. 3952 of 2010

¶4

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (CG), through its Divisional Manager, Aamanaka, Raipur (CG)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Thakur Prasad Singh, S/o Shri Jeevit Prasad Singh, R/o Purani Bhatthi Road, Jaiswal Colony, Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG)

¶8

		---- Respondents
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. R.K. Sahu, Advocates
For Respondent	:	None.

¶9

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board

¶10

14/08/2023

¶11

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Civil Appeal No.14/CGIRA/A/11/2009 and prayed for the following reliefs:

¶12

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of the petitioner.

¶13

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh at Raipur (CG).

¶14

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Industrial Court is bad in law and therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned Courts below have not appreciated the legal aspects of the matter properly. The Industrial

¶16

Court as well as the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the application under Section 108 of CGIR Act filed on the same cause of action before the Labour Court, Jagdalpur is already dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2007 and the application of the respondent is barred by the principle of res judicata. The respondent is not entitled to salary of 1988 to 1991 in view of the Central Government Gazette Notification dated 27.12.2002. The respondent was retired on 31.1.2003 by taking benefit of voluntary retirement scheme, 2003, according to which only retiral benefits can be given to the respondent. So, the impugned order dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure P/1) being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.

¶17

No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called for arguments. However, in his return, the respondent has objected that the respondent has taken voluntary retirement on 31.1.2003 and this is a matter of his previous salary. This salary was granted by the learned Labour Court by order dated 2.5.1991 which was subsequently confirmed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 12.9.2003. Therefore, this petition has no substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶19

It is clear from the order dated 2.5.1991 passed by the learned Labour Court that the respondent was in service for more than 18 years and the Labour Court ordered for his reinstatement with backwages. This order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the learned Industrial Court and the appeal was dismissed vide

¶20

order dated 7.5.2010 holding as under:

¶21

“nwljs nf"Vdks.k ls ns[krs tks ;g tkudkjh izkIr gksrh gS fd vkosnd@mRrjoknh LoSfPNd lsok fuofRr fnukad 31-01-2003 ls izHkko’khy gksrh gS vkSj okafNr jkf’k blds 12 o"kZ igys gh gksdj fnukad 15-02-88 ls fnukad 30-06-91 rd dh gS vkSj ftldh iqf"V blh U;k;ky; us vius vkns’k fnukad 12-09-2003 esa dh gSA Li"V gS fd fnukad 12-09-2003 dh ;g frfFk tc mRrjoknh dk vf/kdkj iq"V gqvk] mldh LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fRr ds fnukad 31-01-2003 ds Hkh ckn dh gSaA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh vijksDr of.kZr gd R;kx (waiver) dk fl)kar vkosnd@mRrjoknh ds fo:) izHkko’khy ugha gksrk vr% LokHkkfod gS fd mRrjoknh@vkosnd dks] mlds i{k esa dkQh iwoZ mRiUu gq;s vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

¶22

It is not disputed by the petitioner that the respondent retired on 31.1.2003 and the order was passed by the learned Labour Court on 2.5.1991. It is also clear that this salary is due to the respondent since 15.2.1988 to 30.6.1991. Only on the ground that the respondent has taken voluntary retirement, he cannot be denied his legitimate backwages. The respondent was entitled for his backwages during the said period. Therefore, the orders passed by both the learned Courts below are in accordance with law warranting no interference by this Court.

¶23

In the result, the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶24

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶25

Khan

C.G. Infrasturcture Devl. Corp. v. Thakur Prasad Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G. Infrasturcture Devl. Corp. v. Thakur Prasad Singh

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

Sushil Kumar Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harish Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Braj Kishore Singh Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Coal India Ltd.and Others