1 2025:CGHC:17859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 45 of 2016 Sanat Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Paras Ram Tiwari, Aged About 61 Years Arvind Nagar, Naya Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus A. K. Dubey Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/04/2025 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Bilaspur, in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 2/CGIR/V2015, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum- Labour Court, dated 11.08.2015, was set aside. 2. Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner filed an application under Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act, seeking regularization of his services. B. The learned Labour Court allowed the application and directed the Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur, to classify the petitioner as a permanent employee to the post of Supervisor. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 C. The State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court Bench, Raipur, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.02.1994. D. A writ petition (WPL No. 2233/1994) was filed by the State; however, during its pendency, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Time Keeper on 14.08.2008, consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. E. The State preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2014. F. After the dismissal of the SLP, the petitioner filed an application on 09.01.2014 seeking compliance of the learned Labour Court’s order and prayed for payment of arrears of salary. G. When no action was taken, the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 91(2) of the CGIR Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class cum Labour Court. H. The learned Magistrate directed the respondent to appear on 05.10.2015. I. The respondent preferred a criminal revision before the Industrial Court, which was allowed on 26.11.2015, discharging the respondent from criminal proceedings. J. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a clear direction to classify the petitioner as a permanent employee on the post of Supervisor and to make payment of arrears of salary. He would further submit that the petitioner moved an application before the respondent, but no action was taken, therefore, an application under Section 91(2) of the CGIR Act was moved before the learned Magistrate. He would also submit that the learned Industrial Court committed an error of law in concluding that the order passed by the learned Labour Court was complied with whereas arrears of salary were not paid. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 14.08.2008 on the post of Time Keeper against a sanctioned and vacant post and he has been receiving the regular salary since then. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not produced the order of the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that there was a direction to make payment of arrears of salary. Further, at the relevant time, the respondent was not posted as Chief Engineer Bango Pariyojna Kachhar and cannot be held responsible for any inaction. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. 6. From a perusal of the record, in the order of the Industrial Court dated 01.02.1994 (Annexure P/2) there is no direction with regard to the payment of arrears of salary. 7. The services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Time Keeper on 14.08.2008, and he is being paid a regular salary since then. Therefore, the direction for regularization has duly been complied with. 8. The complaint case under Section 91(2) of the CGIR Act was filed after a delay of 2 years & 4 months but the learned Magistrate took cognizance. The learned Industrial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the 4 order passed by the Learned Labour Court dated 28.12.1989 has already been complied with, rightly allowed the revision and discharged the respondent. 9. In view of the above discussed facts, I am of the view that the learned Industrial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM