[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure ... vs Mohd. Akbar Khan on 18 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT 2026:CGHC:12875
SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR
TAMRAKAR Date:
2026.03.24
NAFR
10:48:19
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 219 of 2016
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation,
C I D C, Shastri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1. Ramswarup Gupta S/o Shri K. P. Gupta, R/o Pandri, Posted As Assistant
Grade Ill In Chhattisgarh Antvyaysayi Sahkari Vitt Vikas Nigam, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing
Director, Habib Ganj, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation
C.I.D.C. Shastri Chowk Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. Bengali Babu S/o Late Shri Gulab Khan, R/o Indira Colony, Baloda Bazar,
Distirct Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Now Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Habib
Ganj, Bhopal Mahdya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation
C.I.D.C. Shastri Chowk Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohd. Akbar Khan S/o Shri Ajumullah Khan, R/o Mauda Para Ear Sahara
Batteries, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Habib
Ganj, Bhopal Mahdya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation
C.I.D.C. Shastri Chowk Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. Abdul Aziz S/o Late Shri Azimuddin, R/o Bayron Bazar Kasaipaara, Tahsil
And Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Habib
Ganj, Bhopal Mahdya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation,
Cidc, Shastri Chowk, Raipur District-Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. Durga Das Sahu S/o Shri Tulsi Das Sahu R/o Housing Board, Kota, Raipur,
District-Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. M. P. Road Tranhsport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Habib
Ganj, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh , District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through The
Managing, Director, Chhattisgarh, Infrastructure Development Corporation,
Cidc, Shastri Chowk,raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. Suresh Daudia S/o Shri Bhuvan Laql Daudia, R/o Shivnagar
Mathpurena,raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Habib
Ganj, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/s : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/Workmen : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate
For M.P. RTC : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
18.03.2026
1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Civil Appeal Nos. 4,5,6,7,8 and
9/C.G.I.R. Act/A/11/2016 dated 14.09.2016, whereby, appeals preferred by
the workmen were allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to
make payment of arrears of salary (overtime and night halt allowance)
within a period of 30 days.
2. The facts in brief are that the workmen were working with Madhya Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC). After creation of State of
Chhattisgarh the services of workmen were allocated to the State of
Chhattisgarh and they were working under Chhattisgarh Infrastructure
Development Corporation (CIDC) on various posts. Some of the workmen
opted for voluntary retirement immediately after bifurcation of MPSRTC and
creation of CIDC.
3. The workmen moved applications under Sections 31(3) and 108 of
Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Act,
1960) before the Labour Court claiming therein arrears of overtime
allowance and night halt allowance for period from 1995 to 2002. They
further pleaded that Rs. 1,14,833, Rs. 54,292, Rs. 118532,Rs. 53528, Rs.
91700, and Rs. 84376/- respectively have not been paid. A notice of
demand was served on CIDC on 07.07.2004. In the conciliation
proceedings, the officer of CIDC accepted its liability, but failed to honour
his words.
4. CIDC filed reply to applications moved under Sections 31(3) of the Act of
1960 and denied averments made therein. It was pleaded that liability to
pay arrears of allowances relates to the period prior to 31.12.2002 and as
per the notification dated 27.12.2002 liability to pay dues of employees
prior to said date is of MPSRTC. It was also pleaded that the claim of the
workmen is barred by limitation under the CGIR Act, 1960.
5. The learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and
thereafter, award was passed, whereby CIDC has been directed to make
payment of allowance to the workmen as under :-
Sr. No. Name of Employee Period of Work Arrears of salary
01 Ram Swaroop Gupta 1995-2002 Rs. 114833/-
02 Bangali Babu 1995-2002 Rs. 54292/-
03 Mo. Akbar Khan 1995-2002 Rs. 118532/-
04 Abdul Aziz 1995-2002 Rs. 53528/-
05 Durga Das 1995-2002 Rs. 91700/-
06 Suresh Daudia 1995-2002 Rs. 84376/-
6. It is informed that earlier applications under Section 31(3) of Act of 1960
were moved before the Labour Court, which were rejected vide order dated
08.04.2013. Appeals were preferred before the Industrial Court and matter
was remitted back for fresh adjudication vide order dated 12.08.2013. After
remand, the learned Labour Court dismissed the applications moved by the
workmen on the ground of delay as well as on merits vide order dated
23.01.2016. The workmen preferred separate appeals before the Industrial
Court against said awards and all the appeals have been allowed vide
order dated 14.09.2016. CIDC has preferred these writ petitions against
order dated 14.09.2016.
7. Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate appearing for CIDC would argue that the
claim of the workmen was barred by limitation according to the provisions
of Section 62 of CGIR Act, 1960. It is also argued by Mr. Majumdar that the
workmen failed to demonstrate that they were entitled for overtime and
night halt allowances. He would submit that the learned Industrial Court
has fastened liability with CIDC, but CIDC is not liable to settle the dues of
employees prior to year 2002 as per notification issued by the Central
Government dated 27.12.2002, wherein the liability of the MPSRTC has
been categorically defined. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and
Anr. vs. G.K. Gupta and Anr., passed in WA No. 419 of 2011.
8. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate appearing for workmen would submit that
notice of demand was served upon CIDC according to the provisions of
Section 31 (2) of the Act of 1960. He would contend that due to
inadvertence, the workmen mentioned Section 31 (3) in the application
moved before the learned Labour Court. He would contend that mentioning
incorrect provision of law would not be fatal. He would submit that the
learned Labour Court considered the merits of the case and initially
dismissed the applications. He would submit that the Industrial Court in
appeal allowed the claims of the workmen. It is argued that the workmen
worked under CIDC and they got retired from services, therefore, the
learned Industrial Court rightly directed CIDC to satisfy the liability. With
regard to issue of limitation, Mr. Harshal Chouhan would submit that there is
no specific exclusion of provisions of Limitation Act and Section 4 to 24
would apply in the proceedings under CGIR Act. He would submit that CGIR
is a benevolent and beneficial statute & in absence of categorical and
unequivocal mandate by the legislature it would not be appropriate to reject a
claim of an employee on the ground that he did not approach the Labour
Court within the time frame. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in
WPL No. 5110 of 2011 parties being M. Mohan Rao vs. Managing
Director and others. It is further contended by Mr. Harshal Chouhan that
the learned Industrial Court considered genuine claims of the workmen and
directed CIDC to make payment. He would submit that after creation of
CIDC liability has been shifted with CIDC according to the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 and notification issued by the
Central Government dated 27.12.2002. He would submit that these
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
9. Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate appearing for MPSRTC would oppose the
submission advanced by Mr. Anoop Majumdar. Mr. Sharma would argue
that a clarificatory notification in respect of the assets and liabilities of the
employees of the MPSRTC, who have come within the purview of the
CIDC, subsequent to the creation of new State was issued on 16.02.2016,
which states that all the assets, liabilities, rights and employees received by
the Chhattisgarh State due to division of Madhya Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation shall be deemed to be subordinate to CIDC with
effect from 13.12.2002 and all employees received from the said
disintegrated Corporation shall be deemed to be absorbed in CIDC and
CIDC shall be the employer. He would submit that the clarificatory
notification would make it clear that any liability received by the State of
Chhttisgarh shall be of its employer i.e. CIDC, and therefore, the learned
Industrial Court rightly directed CIDC to satisfy it. He has placed reliance on
the judgment passed in WPL No. 3229 of 2007 parties being CIDC and
Anr. vs. Smt. Nirupa Meshram and Ors. wherein it is held that after
13.02.2002 employees allocated to State of Chhattisgarh would be liability
of CIDC.
10. He would contend that though services of workmen were allocated to State
of Chhattisgarh and they got retired from State of Chhattisgarh, but as
liability, assets were already bifurcated in the year 2002, therefore, liability
would be of CIDC to make payment of arrears of salary or any other claim
of the workmen working with CIDC. He would submit that these petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
12. Admittedly, the petitioners were employees of MPSRTC. After bifurcation
of State of Madhya Pradesh and creation of State of Chhattisgarh, their
services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Their services were
taken over by CIDC. Till 31st December, 2002, applications were not moved
by workmen before the learned Labour Court claiming therein overtime
allowance or night halt allowance. After creation of CIDC, some of the
employees/workmen opted for voluntary retirement. First time, notice was
served upon CIDC on 07.07.2004, therein claiming, overtime and night halt
allowances. Application under Section 31(3) of the Act of 1960 was moved
by the workmen in the year 2012. Initially, the applications moved by the
workmen were rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated
08.04.2013. The workmen preferred separate appeals before the Industrial
Court and vide order dated 12.08.2013 those appeals were allowed and
applications were remitted back to the Labour Court to decide it afresh.
Learned Labour Court dismissed the applications moved by workmen vide
order dated 23.01.2016 on the ground of limitation as well as merits. The
workmen preferred separate appeals before the Industrial Court and those
appeals have been allowed.
Section 31 deals with notice of change and same is reproduced
herein-below :-
"Section 31 - Notice of change.
(1) An employer intending to effect any change in
respect of an industrial matter specified in
Schedule I shall give notice of such intention in
the prescribed form and manner to the
representative of employees and to such other
persons as may be prescribed.
(2) A representative of employees desiring a
change in respect of an industrial matter which is
neither covered by standing orders nor is
specified in Schedule II, shall give notice thereof
in the prescribed manner to the employers
concerned and to such other persons as may be
prescribed.
(3) A representative of employees or an
employee desiring a change in respect of an
industrial matter specified in Schedule II or any
other matter arising cut of such change may
make an application to Labour Court in such
manner as may be prescribed.
[ Proviso * * * * ]"
13. Bare reading of the provision of Section 31(2) & (3) would make it clear that
a representative of employees desiring a change in respect of an industrial
matter specified in Schedule II may move an application before the Labour
Court. The applications were moved by the workmen claiming therein
overtime and night halt allowance for period from 1995 to 2002.
14. Schedule II of the Act, 1960 describes changes which may be claimed by
employer or representative of employees by filing an application before the
competent Court.
15. The conjoint reading of Sections 31(2) & (3) and Schedule II of the Act of
1960 would make it clear that application by an individual workman
claiming therein overtime or halt allowance would not be competent.
16. Section 61 of the Act of 1960 deals with Powers of Labour Court. The
Labour Court may decide dispute regarding which application has been
made under Section 31(3) of the Act or Industrial disputes referred to it
under Section 51 or 52, disputes whether a strike, lock-out, stoppage,
closure or any change and further may decide a dispute which require any
employer to withdraw any change or lock-out.
17. Section 62 of the Act of 1960 states about commencement of proceedings.
Section 62(i) specifically states that any dispute falling under Clause (a) of
paragraph (A) of sub-section (1) of Section 61 may be raised within two
years from the date of the dispute. It is further provided in this Section that
if the dispute is connected with the termination, the dispute may be raised
within a year from the date of termination; and where no period of limitation
is prescribed within three months of the order of termination. In these batch
of cases, the workmen moved applications in the year 2012 before the
learned Labour Court under the provisions of Section 31 (3) of Act of 1960,
wherein, they claimed arrears of overtime and night halt allowances for
period from 1995 - 2002. The learned Labour Court rejected the
applications on the ground of limitation as those applications were moved
after expiry of limitation prescribed in Section 62 (i) of the Act of 1960.
18. The learned Industrial Court dealt with this issue and held that the
employer failed to make payment of allowance to the workmen which gives
recurring cause of action, and therefore, the applications moved by
workmen before the learned Labour Court were within prescribed period of
limitation.
19. The findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court with regard to period
of limitation appears to be reasonable as the workmen were not paid
arrears of overtime and night halt allowance, which provided them recurring
cause of action. In the matter of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, reported in
(1995) 5 SCC 628, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that continuing wrongs
like persistent non-payment of dues create fresh cause of action each
month. Relevant para 5 and 6 are reproduced herein-below :-
"5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that
the Tribunal has missed the real point and
overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant's
grievance that his pay fixation was not in
accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a
continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a
recurring cause of action each time he was paid a
salary which was not computed in accordance with
the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a
fresh cause of action arises every month when he is
paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong
computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt
true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on
merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to
the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the
question of limitation would arise for recovery of the
arrears for the past period. In other words, the
appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears
calculated on the basis of difference in the pay
which has become time barred would not be
recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper
fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to
cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his
claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential
relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc. would
also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to
disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can
be made only on the basis of the situation existing
on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other
consequential relief which may be barred by his
laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited
extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot
be treated as time barred since it is based on a
recurring cause of action.
6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the
appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning
thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on
a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the
correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay
fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire
tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of
each payment of the salary when the employee is
entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance
with the rules. This right of a Government servant to
be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure
according to computation made in accordance with
rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an
incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so
long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the
equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that
the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota
China Subba Rao and Others vs. Mattapalli Raju
and Others, AIR 1950 Federal Court 1).
20. The workmen placed on record Ex. P/1 & P/2 issued by the CIDC, Depot
Manager, whereby, the employees of CIDC were held entitled to receive
overtime and night halt allowances. The claim of the workmen was based
on these documents, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Majumdar that
the workmen failed to substantiate their right to claim allowances appears
to be misconceived and is hereby rejected.
21. Now coming to the issue of liability of CIDC. In the matter of State of
Chhattisgarh and another vs. G.K. Gupta and another passed in WA
No. 419 of 2011, the Hon'ble Division Bench while dealing with the almost
similar issue with regard to notification dated 27.12.2002 issued by the
Central Government held that the liability of CIDC to make payment of
Employees Deposit Fund Scheme falls in clause 4 of the notification dated
27.12.2002 as it relates to payment of said amount up to date of
dissolution, whereas, other liabilities, such as loan and advances are
concerned would fall under clause 2 of the notification. The Hon'ble
Division Bench further held that a distinction is made between the liabilities
relating to payment of salary and the liabilities other than the salary. The
Hon'ble Division Bench modified the order passed in writ petition and held
that State of Chhattisgarh and CIDC would not be liable to incur and pay
the interest liability as demanded by the workmen pursuant to the EDF
Scheme and instead, MPSRTC was directed to make payment. Relevant
para 22 and 24 are reproduced herein-below :-
"22. As stated supra, the liability in question falls
in clause 4 because it relates to payment of.
salary up to the date of dissolution, Whereas so
far as other liabilities, such as loan and
advances are concerned, it falls in clause 2 of
the order/Notification. It is thus clear that a
distinction is made between the liabilities relating
to payment of salary and the liabilities other than
the salary' Since this case relates to liability
pertaining to salary and hence it would be
governed by clause 4 and not fall in clause 2.
Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellants from the scheme that
the entire money after deduction by all division
head offices used to be sent to Bhopal head
office in M.P. as provided in EDF Scheme and
therefore the amount always remained with the
MPSRTC at Bhopal in their head office and not
at divisional head. It is for all these reasons,
both factually and legally, the submission has no
force and is accordingly rejected.
24. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, all
the appeals succeed and are allowed in part.
The impugned common order dated 4th July,
2011 is accordingly modified to the extent by
declaring that the appellants i.e 'State of
Chattisgarh' and 'CIDC' are not liable to incur
and pay the interest liability as demanded by the
writ petitioner pursuant to the EDF Scheme and
instead, it is declared and directed that the
'MPSRTC' (respondent No.2) is and would
continue to be liable to incur and pay the interest
liability accrued on the deposit made by the writ
petitioner pursuant to the EDF Scheme to the
writ petitioner, including all kinds of liabilities
arising out of the EDF Scheme.
22. Relevant part of notification dated 27.12.2002 issued by the Central
Government is reproduced herein-below :-
"2) The sharing of current assets
(excluding buses and stores) and liabilities
including loans, advances, etc. shall be
made by arriving at the formula midway
between the formulae suggested by
Government of Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh, i.e. between 18:82
suggested by Chhattisgarh and 26.49 :
73.51 suggested by Madhya Pradesh.
4) Salary of staff including Voluntary
Retirement Scheme till the date of
dissolution shall be paid by the existing
undivided Corporation."
23. Mr. Varun Sharma has placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Nirupa
Meshram (supra) wherein the liability was fastened with the CIDC as
liability had emerged after creation of State of Chhattisgarh. Para 9 is
reproduced herein-below :-
"9. By implication of the clarificatory notification it
has to be presumed that, all the employees who
were on the rolls of State of Madhya Pradesh
prior to the creation of State of Chhattisgarh and
have subsequently by virtue of the litigation or in
respect of the nature of dispute came within the
purview of the petitioner corporation or within the
territory of the State of Chhattisgarh would be
deemed to be the employees of the petitioner
corporation. From this it should also be
presumed that such employees to have retired
from the employment of Chhattisgarh
Infrastructure Development Corporation."
24. In the present case, the workmen claimed allowances for period from 1995
to 2002, therefore, it cannot be held that the liability emerged after creation
of State of Chhatttisgarh, and thus, the facts of the cited case are different
from the facts of the present case.
25. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by
the Hon'ble Division Bench, it can safely be held that liability cannot be
fastened with CIDC to make payment of overtime and night halt allowances
as assessed by the learned Industrial Court in its judgment dated
14.09.2016.
26. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of G.K. Gupta (supra) has
categorically held that the liability will fall within clause 4 of the notification
dated 27.12.2002 and further directed the MPSRTC to make payment of
dues to the workmen. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. MPSRTC
(now MPRTC) is directed to make payment of arrears of overtime and night
halt allowances to the workmen within period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
27. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
$iddhant
