Gayaprasad Paswan Vs South Eastern Coalfields Lmd.

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2025:CGHC:13533

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1918 of 2025

¶6

1 - Gayaprasad Paswan S/o Shri Bandhu Prasad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Deepka Colony, M.Q No. 622, Deepka, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Shatugan Rai S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Rai Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Deepka Colony, M.Q No. 255, Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Jogendra Paswan S/o Shri Mahajan Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Deepka Colony, M.Q No. 286, Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Bhagirathi Yadav S/o Late Shri Pahari Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Vidhram Nagar, Jhabar, Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Madan Lal S/o Shri Om Prakash Aged About 59 Years R/o B. 140, Urja Nagar Village Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Vidhi Singh S/o Late Shri Shivpujan Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Deepka Colony, M.Q No. 240, Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 / 5

¶13

7 - Bharat Lal S/o Shri Ajeet Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Baradwar Village Lausra, District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶14

8 - Gurvinder Singh S/o Shri Mahle Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Power Tipariya, First Floor, Sarda Vihar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶15

9 - Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Bhag Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o M.P Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶16

10 - Ramesh Kumar Sirka S/o Shri Jumbal Sirkaaged Aged About 62 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Petitioner(s)

¶18

versus

¶19

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Lmd. Through Its Chairman-CumManaging Director, Head Office - Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G)

¶20

2 - Provident Fund Commissioner Block-D Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) - 492004

¶21

3 - Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur Civic Centre, Mahartal, Jabalpur (M.P.)

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶24

For Petitioners	: Mr. S. K. Gangele, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Richa Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent/ SECL	: Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, CGC

¶25

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

21/03/2025

¶28

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction

¶29

towards the respondent authorities/ Provident Fund

¶30

3 / 5

¶31

Commissioner to initiate proceeding under Section 7A of the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act of 1952”) and to take other action in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1952 against the respondent/ SECL.

¶32

(i) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the SECL awarded contract to three contractors for transportation of coal from the point of production of coal up to the dispatch of coal at the railway sidings. The SECL provided trippers to the contractors for the purpose of transportation of coal and to operate the trippers, the contractors employed the present petitioners. The petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court seeking the relief of parity.

¶33

(ii) He would further submit that the petitioners preferred a petition bearing MP No.3548/1987 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to enquire into the question as to whether the work done by the workmen of the transporters of the same type of work i.e. being done by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer. He would submit that in accordance with the order of the High Court, the Union agitated the matter before the CLC wherein all the parties agreed to refer the dispute to R.K. Mehta, Director (Personnel) to the effect that ‘whether the workers employed by the transport contractor at Gevra Project are being paid the correct wages, if not, what relief would be entitled to.’ After hearing the parties the

¶34

4 / 5

¶35

said authority held that the workers engaged by the contractors are entitled the similar wages as has been paid by the SECL to its employees who were performing the same and similar nature of work. However, when the SECL did not pay the wages, the workers approached the Labour Commissioner, who ordered the SECL to deposit Rs.1,40,88,946/-. Learned counsel would submit that presently the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming provident fund under the Act of 1952 from SECL , seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to proceed under Section 7A of the Act of 1952.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 submit that the petitioners have never approached the respondent No.2 and no representation or claim has been made before the respondent No.2 whereas the writ petition has been filed directly seeking proceeding under Section 7A. Learned counsel would further submit that if the petitioners will approach individually before the respondent No.2/ competent authority by filing their representation for proceeding under Section 7A, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within the period of 30 days.

¶37

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

¶38

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents and particularly considering the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the petitioners are directed to

¶39

5 / 5

¶40

approach the respondent No.2 individually by submitting a fresh representation before him. In the event of filing of such representations, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of such representations.

¶41

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶43

$. Bhilwar

Gayaprasad Paswan v. South Eastern Coalfields Lmd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayaprasad Paswan v. South Eastern Coalfields Lmd.

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

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Masih Prakash Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhagendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amolak Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram @ Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh