Chattisgarh High Court
Ghurauram Chauhan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:16900
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
REKHA signed
WPL No. 113 of 2015
by
SINGH REKHA
SINGH
1 - Ghurauram Chauhan S/o Shri Nankiram Chauhan, Aged About 35
Years R/o At Village - Tilgi, Tahsil Pusaur, Civil And Revenue District -
Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh ,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Superintendent, Pre - Matric Girls Hostel Bonda, Block
Baramkela, Dsitrict Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Mandal Sanyojak, Aadiwasi Development - Baramkela, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwasi Development Raigarh, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
6 - The Labur Court, Raigarh, Through Its Presiding Officer, District -
Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate
For State Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
-2-
11.04.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue appropriate writ by setting aside/ modify the
impugned award dated 16-10-2014, passed by the
Respondent No. 6 (Labour Court, Raigarh), in Case
No. 07/I.D. Act/2013/ Reference. (Annexure P-1).
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ/ direction to the respondents
authority to reinstate the petitioner in his service and
also allow the full salary and back wages from the date
of termination and other consequential benefit.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue an appropriate writ/direction to the respondent
authority/ employer to pay appropriate compensation
to the petitioner.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire record from the respondents authority
and pleased to grant other relief in favour of the
petitioner, which may be suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the learned Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) while partly
allowing the statement of claim, directed the respondents to make
payment of retrenchment allowance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- only.
He would further submit that the termination of services of the
petitioner has been found illegal by the learned Labour Court,
therefore, he would pray that the petition may be allowed and the
order passed by the learned Labour Court may be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer
appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by
Mr. Naik. He would submit that in the absence of a vacancy, the
order with regard to reinstatement was not passed by the learned
Labour Court and according to the provisions of Section 25(F) of
3
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’),
wages of one month was awarded to the petitioner. He would lastly
submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused
the record.
5. The petitioner filed a statement of claim inter alia on the ground
that he worked as a Cook under respondent No.2 from 26.07.2007
till 30.04.2009 and his services were discontinued by an oral order.
The petitioner as well as the respondents have admitted this fact
that initially, the petitioner was receiving wages to the tune of
Rs.2,877/- per month. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that
the discontinuation of services of the petitioner was illegal and
contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 but in
the absence of a vacancy, the order of reinstatement was not
passed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court directed the
respondents to make a payment of Rs.7,000/- as a retrenchment
allowance.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner worked under respondent No.2 for a
period of one year and eight months and there is a finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal that the termination of services of
the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section
25(F) of the Act of 1947, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the
award passed by the learned Labour Court requires modification.
As the discontinuation/termination of the services of the petitioner
has been held illegal by the learned Labour Court and the same
has not been challenged by the State by filing a writ petition, the
-4-
respondents are directed to make a payment of compensation to
the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 90
days from today.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha