1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 69 of 2022 1 - Deepa Dwivedi D/o Shri Ramtej Dwivedi Aged About 35 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Road Near Fisheries Office Raigarh, Tehsil And Distt.- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Director (Horticulture) Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - (Deleted) Judge Under Industrial Dispute Act As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20- 06-2022. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/09/2025 This writ petition has been filed against the award dated 10.03.2022 passed in Case No. 3/I.D/ Act/2019/Reference by the Industrial Dispute Act Cum Labour Court, Raigarh, CG, by which a reference sent by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Raipur, CG bearing registration No. 25/3/I.D. Act/Labour Commissioner/2019/1820, Raipur dated 11.03.2019 was considered and the retrenchment of the petitioner was found to be illegal and she was directed to be reinstated in the service. However, the learned Labour Court has denied the back wages to the petitioner, this is how this writ petition has been filed. PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 10:26:03 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Court holds that the retrenchment of the petitioner was bad in law and illegal and she is directed to be reinstated in service, the back wages ought to have been granted to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was not under employment during the period she was retrenched therefore, the finding of learned Labour Court with regard to denial of back wages deserves to be set aside. The relief has claimed in the writ petition may be granted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner could not prove that after his retrenchment in July 2018 till reference was made, she was not earning any wages. Even otherwise, the learned Labour Court in paragraph No. 14 given a categorical finding that the petitioner is law graduate and her being involved in law profession cannot be disbelieved therefore, finding recorded by the learned Labour Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference. 4. There is no dispute to the fact that retrenchment of the petitioner was found to be bad in law and she was directed to be reinstated. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the order impugned in respect of reinstatement has already been complied with and the petitioner is working with the respondents. However, the fact remains whether the petitioner is entitled for any back wages or not. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in paragraph No. 14 the learned Labour Court gave a findings that the petitioner was not able to prove that from the retrenchment in month of July 2018 till filing of application she has not worked in any institution or on account of her physical or other inability she was unable to earn. She has not made any statement in her statement of claim with regard to her unemployment. It has been further observed that the petitioner is a law graduate in the year 2019-2020 and her being involved in legal profession cannot be disbelieved. This finding does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan