Partly allowed¶29

Chief General Manager v. The President Rastriya Colliery and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2026WPL/169/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SECL Chirimiri; supersession of Store Keepers U.N. Sinha and B.K.S. Yadav by junior S.K. Das; CGIT Jabalpur award 01/04/2014 in CGIT/LC/R/2/2001 on Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act 1947 reference; ante-dated seniority as Assistant Store Keeper corrected to start 07/01/1982 (promotion as Clerk) instead of 09/10/1977; consequential benefits; WPL No. 169 of 2014 partly allowed; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; decision 05/01/2026; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed with modification of the impugned award: seniority on the post of Assistant Store Keeper to Shri B.K.S. Yadav and consequential benefits to run w.e.f. 07/01/1982 instead of 09/10/1977. ¶29

Chief General Manager Vs The President Rastriya Colliery and Anr. — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL in superseding Store Keepers Shri U.N.Sinha and Shri B.K.S.Yadav by their juniors, including Shri S.K.Das and others, was legal and justified, and if not, what relief the workmen are entitled to (referred question under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947). +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The learned CGIT committed an error in granting Shri B.K.S.Yadav seniority and consequential benefits on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from 09/10/1977.

¶27

Key takeaways

On 09/10/1977, the date from which Shri S.K.Das was granted the benefit of re-designation as Assistant Store Keeper, Shri B.K.S.Yadav was not borne in the cadre; he was promoted to the post of Clerk only on 07/01/1982, so parity benefit could at most run from that later date.ratio¶27
Clause 2 of paragraph 9 of the impugned award is modified to be read as directing that seniority on the post of Assistant Store Keeper to Shri B.K.S. Yadav (from the date of re-designation as Store Keeper given to Shri S.K.Das) and his consequential benefits be granted w.e.f. 07/01/1982, and not from the date granted to Shri S.K.Das on 09/10/1977.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (single judge, Sachin Singh Rajput J.) partly allowed WPL No. 169 of 2014 challenging the award dated 01/04/2014 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/2/2001, passed on a Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reference concerning supersession of Store Keepers Shri U.N.Sinha and Shri B.K.S.Yadav by juniors including Shri S.K.Das. The Court left untouched the tribunal's finding that the supersession was legal and proper, but held the tribunal erred in giving Shri B.K.S.Yadav seniority as Assistant Store Keeper and consequential benefits from 09/10/1977 — the date of re-designation granted to junior Shri S.K.Das — because Yadav was not borne in the cadre on that date and was promoted only as Clerk on 07/01/1982. Clause 2 of paragraph 9 of the award was modified to run seniority and consequential benefits from 07/01/1982.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 169 of 2014

¶5

1 - Chief General Manager M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through Sebernus Bris Tete, Senior Officer (P&A), Chirimiri, PO Chirmiri Colliery, Distt Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - The President Rastriya Colliery Workers Federation, Regional Stores, PO Korea Colliery, Dist Korea, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur, 1230, Gole Bazar Ward, Wright Town, Jabalpur, Distt Jabalpur, MP

¶10

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For beneficiary Shri BKS Yadav : Shri S. Majid Ali, Advocate

¶11

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

05/01/2026

¶14

This writ petition has been filed challenging award dated 01/04/2014 in case No.CGIT/LC/R/2/2001 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Jabalpur by which the reference sent by Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered in favour of Shri BKS Yadav. The reference is quoted herein

¶15

¶16

below -

¶17

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL PO Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (MP) in superseding Shri U.N.Sinha and Shri B.K.S.Yadav, Store Keepers of Regional Stores, Korea of SECL, Chirimiri Area by their juniors Shri S.K.Das and others is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?”

¶18

The reference was answered in the following manner -

¶19

“9. In the result, award is passed as under :-

¶20

(1) The action of the Chief General Manager, Chirimiri Area of SECL PO Chirimiri, distt. Korea (MP) in superseding Shri U.N.Sinha and Shri B.K.S.Yadav, Store Keepers of Regional Stores, Korea of SECL, Chirimiri Area by their juniors Shri S.K.Das and others is legal and proper.

¶21

(2) IInd party is directed to give seniority on the post of Asstt. Store Keeper to Shri B.K.S.Yadav from date of re-designation as Store Keeper given to Shri S.K.Das and consequential benefits be allowed to workman.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited grievance of the petitioner is that clause 2 of para 9 of the impugned award directing the petitioner to re-designate the post of B.K.S.Yadav and granting seniority on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from the date the benefit was granted to Shri S.K.Das is bad in law because admittedly in the case in hand, Shri B.K.S.Yadav was appointed on 01/01/1980 as General Majdoor and was promoted on the post of Clerk on 07/01/1982 whereas Shri S.K.Das was appointed in the year 1973 and was designated as Assistant Store Keeper w.e.f. 09/10/1977 and on that day, Shri B.K.S.Yadav was not borne in cadre. Therefore, at the most, if any consequential benefit is to be given treating Shri B.K.S.Yadav at par with Shri S.K.Das would be from 07/01/1982 when he was borne in the cadre of Clerk which is re-designated as Assistant Store Keeper. Therefore, the award to that extent may be modified.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the position that DKS Yadav was appointed on 01/01/1980 as General Majdoor and was appointed as

¶24

¶25

Clerk on 07/01/1982 which was re-designated as Assistant Store Keeper by the respondent and promotion was granted to Shri S.K.Das in the year 1986 granting him benefit of Assistant Store Keeper from 09/10/1977.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶27

Admittedly, the learned CGIT while answering the reference in clause 2 of paragraph 9 specifically held that Shri B.K.S.Yadav should be given seniority and all consequential benefits on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from the date of re-designation as Store Keeper given to Shri S.K.Das. Admittedly, Shri S.K.Das was granted benefit of re-designation on the post of Assistant Store Keeper from 09/10/1977. On that day, Shri B.K.S.Yadav was not borne in the cadre. Admittedly, he was promoted on the post of Clerk on 07/01/1982. Therefore, learned CGIT committed an error in granting such benefit from 09/10/1977.

¶28

In view of above, the impugned award is modified to the extent that clause 2 of paragraph 9 is to be read that the seniority on the post of Assistant Store Keeper to Shri B.K.S. Yadav from the date of re-designation as Store Keeper given to Shri S.K.Das and consequential benefits be granted to him w.e.f. 07/01/1982 and not from the date it was granted to Shri S.K.Das on 09/10/1977.

¶29

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, this writ petition is partly allowed.

¶30

Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶31

Deepti

¶32

Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2026.01.06
12:21:32
+0530

Chief General Manager v. The President Rastriya Colliery and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief General Manager v. The President Rastriya Colliery and Anr.

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. Shyama Laxman Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Balwant Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Lekhram Chandrakar Vs Lomnarayan Chandrakar (Died) through Lrs

Smt. Kanti Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balaram Uke Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firat Ram Kenwat Vs State of Chhattisgarh