1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7933 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kunti Vaishnav W/o Chuman Das Vaishnav, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Seoni, Khelpara Seoni, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Assistant Commissioner, Tribe Development Department, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgah 4 - Superintendent Of Government Girls Hostel, Parchanpal, Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal Government Girls School Parchanpal, Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.13 19:12:42 +0530 2 12/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following beliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have terminated the service of the petitioner without any reason and direct them to reinstate the service of the petitioner. 10.2 That, Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a Daily Wages Employee and without any reason, she has been removed from her service. He would further submit that the petitioner worked as a cook on collectorate rate since 2014 and she attained the status of regular employee, but without assigning any reason she has been removed from service since 09-08-2024. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondent authorities and for reinstatement. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to approach before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to make her reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the present writ petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner was a daily wager 3 employee appointed on collectorate rate and she has been removed from service from 09-08-2024, she can raise her grievances before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering that there is no order with respect to regularization of the services of the petitioner and she has worked there as cook (daily wages employee) on collectorate rate and as per Section 2-A under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, she can raise her grievance before the Assistant Labour Commissioner by filing her reference, which would be alternative efficacious remedy for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved