Partly allowed¶35

Ghurauram Chauhan v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Apr 2025WPL/113/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ghurauram Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh; WPL No. 113 of 2015; High Court of Chhattisgarh; illegal termination of Cook; oral discontinuation; Section 25(F) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; retrenchment allowance Rs. 7,000/-; reinstatement denied for want of vacancy; compensation Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of back wages; Labour Court Raigarh award dated 16-10-2014; Case No. 07/I.D. Act/2013/Reference; Pre-Matric Girls Hostel Bonda; Baramkela; Raigarh; award modified; petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the impugned award; respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner within 90 days in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. ¶35

Ghurauram Chauhan Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Modification of the impugned award; respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner within 90 days in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned award dated 16-10-2014 of the Labour Court, Raigarh, which held the termination illegal but awarded only Rs. 7,000/- as retrenchment allowance without reinstatement, ought to be set aside or modified. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had worked for one year and eight months and the Tribunal had found the termination illegal and contrary to Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947, the award passed by the Labour Court required modification.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The finding of the Labour Court that the discontinuation/termination of the petitioner's services was illegal had not been challenged by the State by filing a writ petition, which formed the basis for granting compensatory relief to the petitioner.

¶32

Key takeaways

In lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the respondents were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 90 days.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L) No. 113 of 2015, decided on 11.04.2025 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), was partly allowed. The petitioner, employed as a Cook under respondent No.2 from 26.07.2007 to 30.04.2009 at monthly wages of Rs. 2,877/-, was discontinued by oral order. The Labour Court, Raigarh, in its award dated 16-10-2014 in Case No. 07/I.D. Act/2013/Reference, held the discontinuation illegal and contrary to Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but declined reinstatement for want of vacancy and awarded only Rs. 7,000/- as retrenchment allowance. Observing that the petitioner had worked for one year and eight months and that the finding of illegality had not been challenged by the State, the High Court held that the award required modification and, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 90 days.

2025:CGHC:16900

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Digitally REKHASINGH signedbyREKHA SINGH

¶6

WPL No. 113 of 2015

¶7

1 - Ghurauram Chauhan S/o Shri Nankiram Chauhan, Aged About 35 Years R/o At Village - Tilgi, Tahsil Pusaur, Civil And Revenue District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Superintendent, Pre - Matric Girls Hostel Bonda, Block Baramkela, Dsitrict Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Mandal Sanyojak, Aadiwasi Development - Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwasi Development Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - The Labur Court, Raigarh, Through Its Presiding Officer, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner	Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate
For State	Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶19

-2-

¶20

11.04.2025

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by setting aside/ modify the impugned award dated 16-10-2014, passed by the Respondent No. 6 (Labour Court, Raigarh), in Case No. 07/I.D. Act/2013/ Reference. (Annexure P-1).

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ direction to the respondents authority to reinstate the petitioner in his service and also allow the full salary and back wages from the date of termination and other consequential benefit.

¶24

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction to the respondent authority/ employer to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner.

¶25

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents authority and pleased to grant other relief in favour of the petitioner, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

Mr. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) while partly allowing the statement of claim, directed the respondents to make payment of retrenchment allowance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- only. He would further submit that the termination of services of the petitioner has been found illegal by the learned Labour Court, therefore, he would pray that the petition may be allowed and the order passed by the learned Labour Court may be set aside.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Naik. He would submit that in the absence of a vacancy, the order with regard to reinstatement was not passed by the learned Labour Court and according to the provisions of Section 25(F) of

¶28

¶29

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), wages of one month was awarded to the petitioner. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶31

The petitioner filed a statement of claim inter alia on the ground that he worked as a Cook under respondent No.2 from 26.07.2007 till 30.04.2009 and his services were discontinued by an oral order. The petitioner as well as the respondents have admitted this fact that initially, the petitioner was receiving wages to the tune of Rs.2,877/- per month. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the discontinuation of services of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 but in the absence of a vacancy, the order of reinstatement was not passed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court directed the respondents to make a payment of Rs.7,000/- as a retrenchment allowance.

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner worked under respondent No.2 for a period of one year and eight months and there is a finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the termination of services of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed by the learned Labour Court requires modification. As the discontinuation/termination of the services of the petitioner has been held illegal by the learned Labour Court and the same has not been challenged by the State by filing a writ petition, the

¶33

-4-

¶34

respondents are directed to make a payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today.

¶35

In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Rekha

Ghurauram Chauhan v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghurauram Chauhan v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janki Bai Vs Geeta Bai

G.venkat Reddy And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Mukund Vs Panku (Died) Through Legal Heirs

Keshaw Ram Bhakta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.