Durgu Singh Markam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 200 of 2019 Durgu Singh Markam S/o Late Shri Dashrath Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Nangwahi Post And Thana - Rengakhar Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Divisional Forest Officer Kawardha (Kabirdham) District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Sahaspur Lohara, Chairman Scrutiny Committee Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/01/2019 1.The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 05.10.2008, whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

2.The rejection was on the ground that the petitioner has not worked continuously between the period 1981 to 2008 as a daily wage employee and therefore he would not be entitled for the benefits arising out of the circular dated 05.03.2008.

3. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner had been initially working as a daily wage employee as a Chowkidar with the respondents from 1981 to August, 2008. In August, 2008 the services of the petitioner stood discontinued.

4. The petitioner immediately raised a dispute before the Conciliation officer and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon vide case No.

213/I.D.Act/Reference/2008. The Labour Court vide its award dated 15.06.2010 held the discontinuance of the services of the petitioner from August, 2008 to be bad in law and accordingly ordered for reinstatement in service without back wages.

5. Perusal of the finding of the Labour Court would also reveal that before the Labour Court there has been a positive evidence led by the petitioner that he has been continuously working with the department since 1981 to August, 2008. There were also certain documents in support of his contentions that he has produced before the Labour Court. The contention of the petitioner was not sufficiently rebutted by the respondents and the Labour Court finally vide its award reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has worked between 1981 to 2008 and the discontinuance was in non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and held the discontinuance to be bad.

6. What is also relevant is that the award of the Labour Court dated 15.06.2010 has not been challenged by the respondents and in due course, the same has attained its finality. The award of the Labour Court has also been complied with in as much as the petitioner has been reinstated in service and he continues to work with the department. Thus, the petitioner in accordance with the findings of the Labour Court has to be presumed to be in continuous employment right from 1989 onwards.

7. The said view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of "Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh" WPS No. 1703/2015, decided on 16.05.2017. Once when there is a categorical finding of the Labour Court, the authorities in the department cannot, unless the award is set-aside, sit over the finding of the Labour Court and take a different view. Once when there is an order of holding the petitioner to be in continuous employment from 1981 onwards, the authorities have to presume the fact that the petitioner is in continuous employment from 1981 till 2008. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the finding of the authority while rejecting the claim for regularization of the petitioner to be bad in law.

8. Given the said facts, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 05.10.2018 is held to be bad in law, arbitrary and deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside.

9. It is directed that the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the award of the Labour Court dated 30.05.2012 as also the order of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of "Tukaram" (supra) and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Rohit JUDGE