Siya Ram v. The State Of Chhattisgarh
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1050 of 2019 1.
Siya Ram S/o Budhe Lal Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Ghuthiya, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2.
Brijlal S/o Dasharu Aged About 62 Years 3.
Sadhram S/o Budhram Satnami Aged About 61 Years 4.
Nand Kumar S/o Sadhram Dhruv Aged About 30 Years 5.
Santosh S/o Prahlad Lodhi Aged About 43 Years 6.
Tejram S/o Sheetal Patel Aged About 28 Years 7.
Sonu S/o Shatruhan Patel Aged About 29 Years 8.
Vinod S/o Baldau Soni Aged About 42 Years 9.
Vinod S/o Bihari Lodhi Aged About 29 Years Petitioners No. 2 to 9 are R/o Village Pendry, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Khushiram (Wrongly Mention Sukhiram In Award) S/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Torla, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. S.M. Ali, Advocate For State :
Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 18/02/2019
1. The grievance which the petitioners has raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioners inspite of the fact having an order of the Labour Court, Bilaspur under the provisions of Payment of
-2Wages Act passed an order as early as on 03.10.2015, till date has not been complied by the respondents.
2. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the authority concerned has also issued orders for getting the award executed by initiating revenue recovery proceedings and an order was passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur to the Collector, Bilaspur in March, 2016. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector has also as early as in September, 2017 issued an order to the Tahsildar ensuring that the recovery proceedings be completed at the earliest, but till date no further development has transpired and the petitioners who are poor workers are still awaiting for reaping the fruits from the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act in their favour.
3. Given the limited grievance that the petitioners have raised in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in the light of the order dated 23.09.2017 by the Deputy Collector to the Tahsildar and ensure that the RRC proceedings are executed at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, unless the order of the Labour Court is either under challenged or has been stayed by any of the higher authority.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved