State Of Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Dropadi Bareth

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (L) No. 175 of 2015

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralyaa, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh (The petitioner no.1 was not a party before the learned Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner no.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Government through the Secretary of the concerned department.)

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Branch Canal, Sub Division No.1, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Dropadi Bareth Wd/o late Laharam Bareth, Ex-Labour, R/o Gram Seoni (Naila), Post Naila, Police Station Naila, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Petitioner-State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23.06.2021

1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Janjgir-Champa in Case No. 16/ID Act/2014 (Ref.). Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement without backwages.

2. The respondent-worker involved in the present case is said to have employed as daily wage worker under the petitioners during 1984 to

-21996. Thereafter he was discontinued from service abruptly. The worker thereafter raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter stood referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence which have been brought on record on either side, vide impugned award has answered the reference in the affirmative holding that the respondent worker is entitled for the benefit of reinstatement without backwages.

3. The impugned award dated 29.11.2014 was challenged by way of present writ petition which was filed by the petitioners on 05.12.2015.

4. From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition itself it shows that the respondent worker was reinstated by the authorities as early as on 30.07.2015 and from 30.07.2015 onward the worker has been continuously working under the petitioners.

5. Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing, counsel for the respondent worker submits that pending the writ petition before this Court the State Government itself has vide order dated 28.02.2020 regularized the services of the worker and since then she is working as a regular employee under the petitioners.

6. Given the aforesaid submission by the counsel for the respondentworker, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner stood reinstated in service pending the writ petition, the equity stands in favour of the worker who firstly was reinstated immediately by the petitioners w.e.f. 30.07.2015 and since then she has put in about 6 years of continuous service and meanwhile she also stands regularized under the petitioners. Moreover, by efflux of time the respondent worker has also served the petitioners for quite some

-3time and is at the fag end of her service career where only few years of service is left for her retirement.

7. Under the circumstances, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition holding that the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at this stage in the light of subsequent development that has transpired particularly in favour of the respondent-worker.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai