Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2025
1
REKHA
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
REKHA
SINGH SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 150 of 2016
1 - Mahesh Singh S/o Late Ram Lal Singh, Aged About 55 Years R/o
Domanpur Post Bandha, Thana And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Mantralaya Raipur
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Nahar, Sub Divison No 17
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Exectuive Engineer Hasdev Nahar, Jal Prabandhan Division Janjgir,
Distirct Janjgir Champa Chattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
07.04.2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned
Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case
No.24/I.D.Act/Reference/2012, dated 30.03.2016 whereby the
statement of claim presented by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed
as a daily wage employee under the respondents on 18.08.1989.
The services of the petitioner were discontinued on 02.06.1995
and it appears that an oral order of termination dated 03.06.1995
was issued by respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner having raised a dispute, a reference was made to
the Labour Court, Bilaspur to decide "whether the dispute raised
after about 16 years is time barred, if not then the termination of
services of the petitioner is legal and just pursuant to the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others,
2006 (4) SCC 1, if not, then what relief can be granted to the
petitioner."
4. The Labour Court vide award dated 30/03/2016 answered the
question of Limitation in favour of the petitioner and held that the
petitioner had established that he was in continuous employment
for a period of more than 240 days immediately before the
discontinuance from services. The Labour Court recorded a finding
that the petitioner had worked as a daily-wage earner from
18.08.1989 to 03.06.1995 and he is entitled to receive
compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of
reinstatement.
5. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v.
Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, Bhuvnesh Kumar
Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85, and
District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal
Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298.
6. Before the Labour Court, the age of the petitioner was shown as
51 years in 2012 and while filing the writ petition on 01.08.2016,
his age was 55 years. The issue with regard to the reinstatement
of the services of the petitioner has become more or less
academic as he has already attained the age of superannuation.
7. The next issue with regard to the lump sum compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances of
the case as the order of reinstatement can not be passed in favor
of the workman.
8. In Bhurumal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded
compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs considering 3 year service period. In
the matter of BSNL v. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 an award of
Rs. 2 lakhs for each of the workmen was granted for their regular
work of 240 days as daily rated employees.
9. In Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank v. Panchamlal Yadav, Civil
Appeal No.9792/2010 decided on 13.07.2021, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a daily
rated employee who worked for five years.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner worked for 6 years whereas the
learned Labour Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- which appears to be
on the lower side. In the attending facts and circumstances and
particularly taking note of the judgments referred to herein above, I
am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as a lump-sum
payment towards compensation would meet the ends of justice.
11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs.
5 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till
its realization.
12. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
