1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 7666 of 2011 1. State of Chhattisgarh though Secretary, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam, Division No. 3, Machadoli, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Ramkhilawan Sahu, Aghed about 38 years, S/o Banshilal Sahu, R/o Mona Screen Printers, Mohan Talkies Road, Jamanipali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 31-07-2025 1) The present writ petition was filed challenging the award dated 14.06.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Korba in Case No. 19/IDA/2009 (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 been employed as daily wage worker under the petitioners Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.31 17:18:03 +0530 2 from May, 1986 till October, 1988. 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 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 14.06.2011 was challenged by way of present writ petition which was filed by the petitioner on 09.12.2011. 4) Today when the matter is taken up for final hearing, counsel for the respondent worker submits that during pendency of this writ petition, State Government vide order dated 08.03.2019 regularized the services of the worker and since then he is working as a regular employee under the petitioners. 5) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners/ State supports the submission made by Ms. Alam. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) The document enclosed in the reply dated 08.03.2019 [Annexure R/2] itself shows that the respondent worker was reinstated by the authorities on 08.03.2019 and since then, the worker is continuously working under the petitioners. 8) Given the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-worker, particularly taking note of the fact that the 3 petitioner stood reinstated in service w.e.f. 08.03.2019 and since then, the worker has been working under the petitioners. Moreover, by efflux of time the respondent worker has served the petitioner for quite some time and is at the fag end of his service career and only few years of service is left for his retirement. 9) 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. 10) The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya