Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 101 of 2022
Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Govardhanlal Sharma Aged About 53
Years R/o Kranti Nagar, C/o M.L. Rao, Gali No. 04, Opposite Sultania
Niwas, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Health And Family
Welfare Department, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Police Station Mandir
Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director Medical Education, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Superintendent Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Cims), Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4. The Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (Cims),
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5. Mahesh Ram Thawait S/o Shri Ram Thawait, R/o Near Shiv
Temple, Sanjay Nagar, Chantidih, Police Station Sarkanda, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6. Ku. Ranjana Yadav D/o Shri M.L. Yadav R/o Jarhabhata, Near
Jhulaghar, Om Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
7. Somesh Kumar Pathak, S/o Late S.K. Pathak, R/o Pathakpara,
Ramgopal Tiwari Ward, Police Station Mungeli, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
8. Mahendra Kumar Gauraha S/o Shri T.P. Gauraha, R/o Kilaward,
Near Radhakrishan Temple, Police Station Civil Lines, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
9. Ku. Sushila Ratre D/o Shri D.L. Ratre, Shrikant Verma Marg,
Behind Sai Darbar, Sharda Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines, District
: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
10. Manish Tiwari S/o Shri Bharatlal Tiwari, R/o Nariyal Kothi,
Dayalband, Police Station Kotwali, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
11. Smt. Priti Soni W/o Shri Hemant Soni, R/o Quarter No. Mig- C/29,
Nehru Nagar, Police Station, Civil Lines, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
2
12. Roman Gaygawal S/o Shri Beni Madhav Gaygawal, Address Post
Khorsi Via Kharod, Tehsil Pamgarh, Police Station Pamgarh,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
13. Sunit Kumar Mishra S/o Shri R.S. Mishra, R/o Jabrapara Gali No. 2,
Police Station Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
21.07.2022
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 4.
2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to the legality, validity and
correctness of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (L) No. 172 of 2017 partly allowing the writ petition
filed by the State / petitioners whereby the learned Single Judge modified
the Award dated 05.05.2017 (pronounced on 06.06.2017) passed in Case
No. 9/I.D.Act/Ref./2013 by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes
Act (for short, 'I.D. Act'), Bilaspur, in which, the Labour Court has
answered the reference in favour of the workers / employees holding that
the discontinuance of services of ten workers / employees was unjustified
and illegal and has thus ordered for reinstatement in services with 20% of
back wages.
3. By an order dated 20.09.2021, the learned Single Judge, partly
allowing the writ petition, directed that the workers / employees would be
entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- for each year of service that they
have rendered with the State Government, i.e. for 5 years, and therefore,
they would be entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each as
compensation in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement of the
claim.
4. The learned counsel for the parties submit that this appeal is
squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in WA No.8
of 2022 and as such, similar directions may be issued in this case.
5. WA No. 8 of 2022 was preferred by seven out of ten workers /
employees.
6. Paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 30.06.2022, is re-produced as
follows:
"30. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is
set aside and the award passed by the Labour Curt is
restored / affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we make no order as to costs."
7. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, in
terms of the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in WA No.8 of 2022, this
appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is
restored / affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make
no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
