Simplex Casting Limited, through Smt. Sangeeta K. Shah v. Pramod Kumar Tripathi

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2026CRMP/3043/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (CRMP No. 3043 of 2025, decided 13/03/2026, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal): sets aside Labour Court's 08.10.2024 order taking cognizance under S. 29 ID Act against Simplex Casting Ltd.'s Managing Director and Chairman on a private complaint, for non-application of mind and absence of adequate reasons; remands the complaint for fresh, reasoned consideration after hearing parties; appearance fixed for 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Court to reconsider the complaint afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties; parties directed to appear before the concerned Labour Court on 09.04.2026. ¶¶31

Simplex Casting Limited, through Smt. Sangeeta K. Shah Vs Pramod Kumar Tripathi — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court rightly took cognizance of respondent No.1's complaint under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, given the petitioners' contention that under Section 34(1) cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by the appropriate Government and not by a private individual, and that the complaint suffered from delay, suppression of material facts, and was directed against persons who were not the employer at the relevant time. +1 more

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The learned Labour Court failed to properly consider the material placed on record and took cognizance of the complaint without recording adequate reasons; the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to reconsider the complaint afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cognizance under S. 29, Industrial Disputes Act — Labour Court took cognizance on the private complaint of respondent No.1 (former employee of the Urla unit) against the Managing Director and Chairman of Simplex Casting Limited and issued summons — respondent's execution proceedings before the Lok Adalat stood withdrawn (12.11.2022) and his application seeking authorization to file a complaint stood rejected — petitioners contended that under S. 34(1) cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the appropriate Government — High Court found the Labour Court failed to properly consider the material on record and took cognizance without recording adequate reasons, the order suffering from non-application of mind — impugned order dated 08.10.2024 set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Court to reconsider the complaint afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties; parties to appear on 09.04.2026.

2026:CGHC:12055

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 3043 of 2025

¶6

1 - Simplex Casting Limited, Through Smt. Sangeeta K. Shah W/o Ketam M. Shah Aged About 47 Years Managing Director, (Wrongly Mentioned As H.R.D. Director In The Cause Title Of The Complaint) Simplex Casting Limited, 32, Shivnath Complex, Near Maurya Talkies, G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

2 - Simplex Casting Limited, Through Ketan M. Shah S/o Late Moolchand Shah Aged About 59 Years Chairman (Wrongly Mentioned As Managing Director In The Cause Title Of The Complaint) Simplex Casting Limited, 32, Shivnath Complex, Near Maurya Talkies G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Pramod Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Hiraman Tripathi Aged About 62 Years R/o Aarchit Real Estate, Block No.- 18, Harshit Tower Residential, Near Panchdham Mandir, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G)

¶11

¶12

2 - Simplex Casting Limited Through Its Deputy Director Uday Datta Corporate Office- 32, Shivnath Complex, Near Maurya Talkies G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

3 - Simplex Casting Limited Through Its C.E.O. Rajiv Kumar Thakur Corporate Office- 32, Shivnath Complex, Near Maurya Talkies G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶17

13/03/2026

¶18

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2024, whereby the learned Labour Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.1 that has been filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as I.D. Act) and issued summons to the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 to face the criminal trial.

¶19

The brief facts of this case is that the petitioners are the Managing Director and Chairman of Simplex Casting Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing casting and

¶20

¶21

machinery parts. The respondent, who was working at the Urla Industrial Area unit of the company, challenged his alleged oral termination before the Appropriate Government, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Prior to the dispute, the said Urla unit had already been transferred to Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. through a Business Transfer Agreement dated 26.04.2019, under which all liabilities of the unit were taken over by the transferee company. The Labour Court passed an Award dated 20.08.2019 directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 without back wages. The respondent later withdrew

¶22

the execution proceedings before the Lok Adalat on 12.11.2022, and his application seeking authorization to file a complaint was also rejected. Despite this, the respondent No.1 filed a fresh complaint against the petitioners, and the Labour Court, by order dated 08.10.2024, took cognizance and issued summons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the said proceedings.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Labour Court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

¶24

¶25

as under Section 34(1) cognizance can be taken only on a complaint made by the appropriate Government and not by a private individual. The respondent suppressed material facts, including withdrawal of his execution application before Lok Adalat and rejection of his request for prosecution by the appropriate Government. The complaint was also filed with unexplained delay and against the petitioners who were not the employer at the relevant time. In absence of a valid complaint under Section 34(1), the proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. It is therefore prayed to quash the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure P-1 Colly.).

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief through this petition because it is contrary to law and facts.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Considering the facts of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the record,

¶29

¶30

this Court finds that the learned Labour Court has failed to properly consider the material placed on record and has taken cognizance of the complaint without recording adequate reasons. In such circumstances, the order impugned, suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Court with a direction to reconsider the complaint afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶32

Parties are also directed to appear before the concerned Labour Court on 09.04.2026 .

¶33

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶35

Vasant

Simplex Casting Limited, through Smt. Sangeeta K. Shah v. Pramod Kumar Tripathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simplex Casting Limited, through Smt. Sangeeta K. Shah v. Pramod Kumar Tripathi

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

Jeevanlal Ray Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sagar Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh