Cement Mazdoor Union a T U C Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:14057

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally REKHA signed by SINGH REKHA SINGH

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 199 of 2017

¶7

1 - Cement Mazdoor Union A T U C Through The General Secretary Nutnashwar Khobragade, S/o Late Krishna Khobragade Age About 70 Years, Mazdoor Union A T U C Jairam Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mantrayala, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur Katuchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - M/s Orissa Concrete And Alloyed Industries Limited, Kapa Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Shantam Awasthy, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

24.03.2025

Heard.

-2-

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

¶23

“i. To kindly issue mandamus to the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 to take necessary action against the respondent no. 4 accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1947 regarding the illegal lay-off and other unfair labour practices.

¶24

ii. To kindly direct the respondent no. 2 to take decision over the report sent by the respondent no. 3 on 19/08/2016;

¶25

iii. To kindly direct the respondent no. 3 to refer the matter of the petitioner before the labour court to proper adjudicate the matter and decide the grievance of the effected workers of the respondent no. 4 accordance with law.

¶26

iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Mr. Awasthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 suddenly declared lay-off in the establishment in the month of July 2015 without compliance with Section 25(M) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), which is punishable under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1947. He would further submit that the petitioner/Union made oral and written complaint before respondent No.3 and requested to take appropriate action against the illegal lay-off and unfair labour practices but till date, no action has been taken. He would contend that the workers are facing acute financial difficulties due to non-payment of wages and a representation was also moved before respondents No.1 & 2 on 29.09.2015. He would further contend that no agreement was entered into between the workers/Union and respondent No.4 on 19.06.2010 and the same is a forged document. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities

¶28

3

¶29

to adjudicate the matter and decide the grievance of the affected workers and further take a decision on the report submitted by respondent No.3 dated 19.08.2016.

¶30

On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Awasthy. She would submit that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner/Union and with the intent to resolve the dispute, a notice was issued by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 for its appearance in the meeting dated 05.11.2015 and again a meeting was fixed on 22.12.2016 but respondent No.4 or his representatives failed to attend the meeting.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶32

Taking into consideration the fact that steps were taken by respondents No.1 & 2 to resolve the dispute and a meeting was also convened by respondent No. 3 but respondent No.4 failed to participate in that meeting, therefore, no decision has been taken yet. Therefore, at this juncture, the present petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to conclude the pending proceedings pursuant to the representations moved by the petitioner/Union within a period of 90 days from today, if already not concluded.

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Rekha

Cement Mazdoor Union a T U C v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cement Mazdoor Union a T U C v. 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

Smt. Sukwara Bai Vs Smt. Savitri Bai

Dhansai @ Butu Yadav Vs Ajay Mishra

Shyamlal Vs Rambai

Jitendra Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Saha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh