M/s Salasar Air Product Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:12359

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 201 of 2017

¶7

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Proprietor Ram Khedia S/o Late Purshottam Das Khedia, Aged About 53 Years, Plot No.73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Labour Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2- Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3- Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4- Ghanshyam Prasad Shastri, S/o Shri Ganesh Shastri, R/o Nutan Chowk, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶14

with

¶15

WPL No. 206 of 2017

¶16

M/s. Salasar Air Product, Through: Proprietor Ram Khedia, S/o Late Shri Purshotam Das Khedia, Age Abot 53 Years , Plot No. 73 Sector B , Industrial Area, Sirgitti Police Station - Sirgitti Bilasapur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

--- Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Labour Department Naya Raipur Mantralay Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶20

2

¶21

2 - Applellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

3 - Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

4 - Subhash Rai S/o Shri Budhi Mohan Rai, R/o Bhawani Nagar Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgah. --- Respondent(s)

¶24

with

¶25

WPL No. 208 of 2017

¶26

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Proprietor Ram Khedia S/o Late Purshottam Das Khedia, Plot No.73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Labour Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralay, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶29

2 - Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

3 - Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

4 - Radheshyam Kaiwarth S/o Late Shri Ramji Kaiwarth, R/o Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapra, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

--- Respondent(s)

¶33

with

¶34

WPL No. 218 of 2017

¶35

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Proprietor Ram Khedia S/o Late Purshottam Das Khedia, Aged About 53 Years, Plot No.73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

Versus

3

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Labour Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

2 - Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶41

3 - Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶42

4 - Manoj Kumar Netam S/o Shri Rajaram Netam, R/o Village Pandariya, Tehsil Pandariya, Police Station Pandariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

--- Respondent(s)

¶44

with

¶45

WPL No. 118 of 2018

¶46

Satya Automobiles Through Manager , Plot No. 42 Sector C Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station - Sirgitti, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶47

--- Petitioner

¶48

Versus

¶49

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Labour Department Naya Raipur Mantralay, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶50

2 - Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶51

3 - Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..

¶52

4 - Shailendra Gwal S/o Shri K P Gwal R/o Behind City Dispensary, Gandhi Chowk , Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶53

with

¶54

WPL No. 217 of 2017

¶55

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Propriter, Ram Khediya, S/o Late Purshottam Das Khediya, Polt No. 73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

Petitioner

4

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Labour Department, Naya Raipur Mantrayalay, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶60

2 - Appellate Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶61

3 - Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶62

4 - Sunil Tirky, S/o Shri Domra Tirki, R/o Village Kharibhar Rangiyadippa, Post Lavakea, District Jaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶63

with

¶64

WPL No. 204 of 2017

¶65

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Proprietor Ram Khedia S/o Late Purshottam Das Khedia, Aged About 53 Years, Plot No.73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶66

--- Petitioner

¶67

Versus

¶68

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Labour Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶69

2 - Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶70

3 - Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶71

4 - Ghanshyam Prasad Shastri S/o Shri Ganesh Shastri, R/o Nutan Chowk, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶72

with

¶73

5

¶74

WPL No. 205 of 2017

¶75

M/s Salasar Air Product Through Proprietor, Ram Khedia S/o Purushottam Das Khedia Age About 53 Year, Plot No. 73, Sector B, Industrial Area, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶76

--- Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Labour Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralay, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶79

2 - Appellate Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶80

3 - Controlling Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶81

4 - Deepak Singh, S/o Shri Indrapal Singh, R/o Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶82

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶83

For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate

¶84

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶85

Order on Board

¶86

12.03.2025

¶87

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ

¶88

petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and finally decided by this common order.

¶89

1. Heard on admission.

¶90

1. With the consent of the parties, these matters are heard finally.

¶91

1. These writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 16.06.2017

¶92

whereby the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the

¶93

6

¶94

jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur were rejected.

¶95

Facts of the present case are that the private respondents moved applications under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for payment of gratuity before the Controlling Authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur in the year 2016. The private respondents were the employees of the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid applications, the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur. It was contended that according to the notification issued on 23.06.2016, the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are one and the same i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner for Raipur, Durg, Bilaspur, Korba and Raigarh therefore applications moved by the private respondents are not maintainable.

¶96

1. The learned Controlling Authority vide order dated 16.06.2017 recorded a finding that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is the Controlling Authority for the District-Bilaspur, whereas the same authority is the appellate authority in the District Janjgir-Champa and Mungeli. It was also observed that the applications were moved to delay the proceedings.

¶97

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the notification dated 23.06.2016, particularly for District

¶98

7

¶99

Bilaspur, the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are one and the same, therefore, the said authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 4 of the Act, 1972.

¶100

1. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would submit that for District Bilaspur, the controlling authority is the Assistant Labour Commissioner, whereas the appellate authority is the Deputy Labour Commissioner. They would contend that the petitioner overlooked the stroke (/) mark mentioned in column three between the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner. They contend that where the power of the Controlling Authority is exercised by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the appeal would lie before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, and where the power of Controlling Authority is exercised by the Labour Officer, the power of the Appellate Authority is exercised by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and there is no illegality or confusion in the notification dated 23.06.2016. They would argue that a subsequent notification has been issued on 07.11.2017 whereby the power of appellate authority has been conferred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner; thus, they would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶101

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶102

8

¶103

10) A perusal of the documents would show that the private respondents moved applications under Section 4 of the Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner in the year 2016 and objections were raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the said authority on the ground that according to the notification dated 23.06.2016, the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority is one and the same.

¶104

11) A perusal of the notification dated 23.06.2016 would show that for the districts Raipur, Bilapur, Korba, Raigarh and Durg, the power of Controlling Authority would be exercised by Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority would be the Deputy Labour Commissioner but where the power of Controlling Authority is exercised by the Labour Officer, the Appellate Authority would be Assistant Labour Commissioner and there is no ambiguity in the notification dated 23.06.2016. The State of Chhattisgarh vide notification dated 07.11.2007 has clarified this issue involved in these petitions.

¶105

12) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby

¶106

dismissed .

¶107

13) Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶108

9

¶109

14) The learned Assistant Labour Commissioner is directed to conclude the pending proceedings expeditiously taking into consideration the fact that these matters were pending since 2016.

¶110

15) The notification dated 07.11.2017 supplied by Mr. Vinay Pandey, the

¶111

learned Deputy Advocate General, is hereby taken on record.

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶114

Judge

¶115

NADIM

M/s Salasar Air Product v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Salasar Air Product 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

S.Mohan and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhuvneshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Gulab Ekka (Kuzur) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manager, Kisan Rice Mill Vs Shri Jagtu Ram Nishad And Ors.

Manager, Kisan Rice Mill Vs Shri Ramadhin Nishad @ Ramadhin Dhruv And Ors.

Krishna Murari Rawani Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation