1 2025:CGHC:21042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 182 of 2016 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Itsw Secretary, Government Of Chhattistarh, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur Chhattisgarh Petitioner No.1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Labour Court, But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No.1 Hereing As It Is Necessary To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of Concerned Department , Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Tahsil, Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shailendra Sharma S/o Shri Deenbandhu Sharma, R/o Village And Post Lalpur, Tahsil Pendra Road, Revenue And Civil District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners/State : Mr.R.S. Marhas,Additional A.G. For respondent : Ms. Diana Bajrang, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No.3/IDA/2013 (Ref.). Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court -2- has granted the relief of reinstatement without back-wages. 2. The respondent-workman was employed as Chowkidar vide order dated 01.07.2007 under the petitioners and he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year with the department. Thereafter, his services were discontinued. The workman raised a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the matter stood referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence, vide impugned award answered the reference in the affirmative and allowed the statement of claim with the relief of reinstatement in service without back-wages. 3. The impugned award dated 04.11.2015 was challenged by filing this writ petition. 4. It is informed that the workman was reinstated in service by the petitioner authorities as early as 24.05.2018 and from 2018 onward, the workman has continuously been working under them. 5. Given the aforesaid submissions by the counsel for the petitioners, particularly taking note of the fact that the respondent stood reinstated in services pending the writ petition, the equity stands in favour of the workman, who was reinstated immediately by the petitioners w.e.f. 24.05.2018 and since then he has put in more than 7 years of continuous service and his services have been regularized under the petitioners. Moreover, by efflux of time, the respondent workman has also served the petitioners for quite some time and would be at the fag end of his service career. 6. Under these circumstances, this court is inclined to dispose of the 3 writ petition holding that the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at this stage in the light of subsequent developments. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of maintaining the award passed by the Labour Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha