Royal Seema Concrete Sleepers Pvt Ltd v. Mahveer Sahu

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPL No. 34 of 2016 • Royal Seema Concrete Sleepers Pvt Ltd ( Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ) Through Factory Manager, Kargiroad Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mahveer Sahu S/o Magle Prasad Sahu,

2. Jawahar Lal Sahu, S/o Kaam Lal Sahu,

3. Kapildas Manikpuri S/o Premdas Manikpuri,

4. Devi Prasad Sahu S/o Manglu Prasad Sahu,

5. Pilaram Vishwakarma S/o Krishna Ram Vishwakarma,

6. Bhart Lal Yadav S/o Lakhanlal Yadav,

7. Nand Kumar Prajapti S/o Bahorik Ram Prajapati,

8. Ramnandan Vishwakrma S/o Krishna Ram Vishwakrma,

9. Ram Narayan Yadav S/o Ramadhar Yadav, 10.Shyam Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu R/o Village Pataita, Post Gobripat Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondent For Petitioner Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents 2,3, 7 & 9 Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 17/3/2016

1. Heard.

2. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is against the interim order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of 10 labourers during pendency of the reference proceedings.

3. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 7 & 9, would submit that the said respondents have neither received any amount towards full and final settlement from the petitioner nor they have been reinstated pursuant to the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the Labour Court to decide the reference at the earliest.

4. Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that he has no objection to the submission made by Mr. Patankar, however, during pendency of the reference proceedings, the impugned order should not be given effect to, because, it has virtually given the final relief to the respondents.

5. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner has not yet filed its reply to the Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, however, at the same time, the Labour Court has allowed an interim relief in favour of workmen, which amounts to virtually deciding the reference without recording evidence of the parties or considering the merits of the matter. Such procedure for deciding a reference is not at all permissible in law.

6. Ordinarily, the Courts and Tribunals should desist from granting such relief by interim measure, which has the effect of giving

final relief to a party.

7. In view of the above, the interest of justice would be served if the Labour Court is directed to decide the reference application at the earliest.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall file its reply before the next date of hearing and thereafter, the Labour Court shall decide the reference application within 03 months.

9. Till the matter is finally decided by the Labour Court, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. It is made clear that the Labour Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by it in the impugned order or by this Court in the present order.

10.With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna