Dismissed

Mukesh Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2023WPS/3732/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of five writ petitions challenging the termination of service of employees. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the respondent was a scheduled industry under the Industrial Relations Act, offering an alternative statutory remedy before the Labour Court. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to appr

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as they were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Relations Act. The petitioners were directed to file an applicatio

Mukesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 3711 of 2018

¶4

Jai Prakash Jaiswal S/o Late Khumansai Sai Jaiswal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tendubhata, Post Sarkho Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (Cspgcl), Through Its Executive Director (H.R) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Executive Director (Gen.), Dspm, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

WPS No. 3720 of 2018

¶13

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal S/o S/o Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tendubhata, Post- Sarkho Tehsil And District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Collector, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (Cspgcl), Through Its Executive Director (H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Executive Director (Gen.) Dspm, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited. Korba, East, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Respondents

¶21

WPS No. 3724 of 2018

¶22

Dipesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tendubhata, Post - Sarkho Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶27

Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶28

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited ( C S P G C L ) Through Its Executive Director ( H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

Executive Director ( Gen.) D S P M , Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶30

---- Respondents

¶31

WPS No. 3726 of 2018

¶32

Sushma Jaiswal D/o Bhagwal Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Tendubhata, Post - Sarkho Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶33

---- Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶36

Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶37

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited ( C S P G C L ) Through Its Executive Director ( H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶38

Executive Director ( Gen.) D S P M , Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶39

---- Respondents

¶40

WPS No. 3729 of 2018

¶41

Ragini Jaiswal W/o Pawan Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 29 Years D/o Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal, Aged 29 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Quarter No. B - 289 Kusmunda , District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶42

---- Petitioner

¶43

Versus

¶44

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶45

Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶46

¶47

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited ( C S P G C L ) Through Its Executive Director ( H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶48

Executive Director ( Gen.), D S P M , Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶49

---- Respondents

¶50

WPS No. 3732 of 2018

¶51

Mukesh Jaiswal S/o Dwarika Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Tendubhata Post Sarkho Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶52

---- Petitioner

¶53

Versus

¶54

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Rehabilitation Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶55

Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶56

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited ( C S P G C L ) Through Its Executive Director ( H. R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Viddhut Seva Bhawan Danganniya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶57

Executive Director ( Gen.) D S P M , Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Korba East, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶58

---- Respondents

¶59

For petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate For State. : Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Samarth Singh, Advocates

¶60

¶61

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board

¶62

12.04.2023

¶63

Since common facts and law are involved in these petitions, they are being heard and disposed by this common order.

¶64

The petitioners were working as Assistant Grade-III with Marwa Tendubhata Thermal Power Plant under the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy as their land were acquired for establishment of power plant. Due to intersee dispute among the family members complaints were lodged by the family members and on receiving complaint, the company requested the Collector to furnish report. On the basis of content of the report furnished by the Collector, the respondent company terminated their service, whereas, no departmental inquiry has been initiated against them.

¶65

It is not in dispute that the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation 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 petitioner being an employee as defined under 2(13) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act. There is complete mechanism which has been prescribed under the Act of 1960 for redressing the grievance of the employees. As such, the petitioners being employees and the respondent being schedule industry, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy of filing application before the Labour Court.

¶66

It is also not in dispute that disputed facts are involved in the case which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. The question with regard to maintainability of the writ petition under the Labour Law where disputed facts are involved has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. And Another vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union {2005 6 SCC 725} , wherein

¶67

¶68

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 8, which reads as under:

¶69

In UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd and Ors v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh (2004 (4) SCC 268), it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To same effect are the decisions in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamalkar Shantarum Wadke 1976 (1) SCC 496), Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant (1995 (5) SCC 75), Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Anr. (2002) (2) SCC 542) and in Scooters India and Ors. v. Vijai V. Eldred (1998 (6) SCC 549).

¶70

Therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable in view of alternative statutory remedy available under the Chhattisgrarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 and on the count that disputed facts are involved which can be very well ascertained by the learned Labour Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record. The petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy of filing application under Section 31(3) of the Industrial Relations Act challenging the termination order, the writ petitions are not maintainable.

¶71

Considering the fact that the termination order has been issued by the respondents on 09.03.2018 and the present writ petitions have been filed on 08.05.2018, it is directed that in the eventuality of filing of the application under Section 31(3) of the Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the Labour Court shall decide the same in accordance with the law on its own merits within an outer limit of one year from the date of filing of the application without insisting for delay in filing the application.

¶72