Disposed

Narayan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Aug 2024WPS/3967/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging retrenchment notices issued under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying on an antecedent stay order from the same court which stayed the effect of the notices, the Court set aside the impugned notices without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned retrenchment notices dated 18.08.2015 are set aside. The respondent authority is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

Narayan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:31951

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3967 of 2015

¶5

1 - Narayan S/o Shri Dayal, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,

¶6

2 - Kumlal S/o Shri Thakur Ram, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 3 - Faguwa S/o Shri Ramnath Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶7

4 - Bhairam S/o Shri Rup Singh, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Arjun S/o Shri Khorbahara, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

6 - Manohar Das S/o Shri Sadhudas, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

7 - Laxman S/o Shri Ganesh, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶10

8 - Parasram S/o Shri Mahangu, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶11

9 - Kanwal Singh S/o Shri Sanwat, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶12

10 - Kirtan S/o Agam Das, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,

¶13

11 - Sukhdeo S/o Shri Ranguram, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶14

12 - Ashok S/o Shri Kishun, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶15

13 - Prabhu S/o Shri Hinsa, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village

¶16

2 / 3

¶17

Kusikasa, Tahsil And P. S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Petitioners

¶19

versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶21

2 - The Executive Engineer, Pipariya Project, Head Work, Water Resources, Sub Division, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶24

For Petitioner :- Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶25

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶26

21.08.2024

¶27

1. Heard.

¶28

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging notices dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2, under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the services of the petitioners were to be retrenched on 19.11.2015.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are working on daily wages prior to 31.12.1997. Although, they remained retrenched for some period, but later on, they were reinstated in service pursuant to award dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that the effect and operation of the impugned notices has already been stayed

¶30

3 / 3

¶31

by order of this Court dated 03.11.2015. Therefore, the said impugned notices are liable to be quashed.

¶32

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the impugned notices are strictly in accordance with law and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

5. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and especially considering the fact that the effect and operation of impugned notices dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) has already been stayed by order of this Court dated 03.11.2015, this petition, at this stage, is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notices dated 18.08.2015. However, the respondent/competent authority is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law, looking to the administrative exigency, if any.

¶34

6. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of . It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶35

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶36

@d!t!

Narayan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sushila Paikra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jay Prakash Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Poonam Tirkey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shivam Sonwani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prem Rao Ghadge Vs State Of Chhattisgarh