1 2025:CGHC:43491-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 632 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Through Chief Engineer, Sichai Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Bhatapara Nahar Nirman Sambhag 3, Tilda District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bharatlal Yadav S/o Shri Parauram Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Kesda, Thana Simga District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhaneshwar Verma S/o Shri Vishram Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Madhi Chowk, Silyari, Thana Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Rupoutin Bai W/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora Tahsil Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.1 - Bhagwati Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora Tahsil Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.2 - Santosh Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora Tahsil Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.29 10:43:50 +0530 2 3.3 - Bhagirathi Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora Tahsil Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.4 - Shiv Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora Tahsil Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Babulal Sinha S/o Shri Khorbahra Sinha Aged About 42 Years R/o Banbhimori, Thana Tilda Neora District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Omprakash Verma S/o Shri Sahdeoram Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Khamariya, Thana Neora District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Revaram Dhimar S/o Shri Ramuram Dhimar R/o Bhimori, Thana Tilda District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent / State. Also heard Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respective respondent on on I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 133 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No. 01/2025, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned and the appeal is 3 heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.02.2025 (Bharatlal Yadav vs. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag and Another) passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(L) No. 178/2017, whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioners / respondents herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/respondents were engaged with the present appellants as a daily rated labourers in the year 1990. Their services were terminated by the oral order in the year 1994. A certificate was issued by the competent authority with regard to the length of their services. Thereafter the respondents/writ petitioners raised a dispute before the appropriate government under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The parties exchanged their pleading, led evidence and thereafter the Learned Labour Court vide award dated 12/05/2017 in Civil Case No. 2/ID Act/2013 whereby the learned Labour Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh each in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners in lieu of reinstatement. Being aggrieved by the award dated 12/05/2017 passed by the Labour Court Raipur in Civil Case No. 2/1 D Act/2013 the appellants/State have also preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPL No. 16 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Bharat Lal Yadav and Others) which is pending 4 consideration before this Court. Further, being aggrieved by the award dated 12/05/2017 passed by the Labour Court Raipur in Civil Case No. 2/I D Act/2013 the respondents/petitioners had preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPL No. 178/2017 (Bharatlal Yadav and Others Vs. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag and Another) on the ground that the writ petitioners worked for more than 4 years and a meager amount has been awarded by the learned Labour Court and has relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs or more has been awarded and thus have prayed to enhance the amount of compensation as the writ petitioners have already crossed the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge on 13/02/2025, after hearing the pleas, disposed of the writ petition directed that the respondents/ writ petitioners are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 02 Lakhs each preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the award passed by the Learned Labour Court was modified up to the extent indicated above. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein have preferred this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law as well as in facts. The Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that being aggrieved by the award dated 12/05/2017 apart from the respondents / writ petitioners, the 5 appellants/State have also preferred petition before this Court which was registered as WPL No. 16/2018 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court and without considering the said case the learned Single Judge has decided the WPL No. 178/2017 filed by the respondents/writ petitioners. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the status of the respondents/writ petitioners is as a casual labourer on account of the availability of work and during the period from the year 1990 to 1994 they have not worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. The learned Single Judge also ought to have considered the fact that the respondents/writ petitioners were engaged as a daily wager with the appellants during the period 1990 to 1994 and their services were retrenched way back in the year 1994 but the respondents/writ petitioners had raised a dispute before the Labour Court only in the year 2013 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 19 years and therefore the same suffers from delay and latches. Lastly, the learned Single Judge also ought to have considered the fact that the learned Labour Court has declined to grant compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to respondent No.6 Rewaram Dhimar (Respondent No.6) as he failed to establish that he has worked 240 days prior to his termination in a calendar year. In the order impugned, the Court has granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement to respondent No.6 sans justification. The learned Single Judge has committed error of law in enhancing the compensation of Rs. 2 6 Lakhs from Rs. 1 Lakh in lieu of reinstatement sans justification. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / writ petitioners opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of District Development Officer & Anr. v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298; Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. v. Employer I/R Management of Food Corporation of India & Anr., (2014) 7 SCC 190; Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85 and State of Uttrakhand & Another vs. Rajkumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and observing that a similar issue as involved in the instant case has been considered by the Apex Court in afore-cited judgments. If the employment of a daily wage worker has been terminated illegally because of the procedural defects of the ID Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court is consistent in taking a view that in such cases, reinstatement would not be automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation, which will 7 meet the ends of justice. The rationale for shifting in this direction has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation and following other procedures. Since such a workman was working on a daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization and when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose would be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court. As such, the writ petitioners would be entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.02 lakhs each. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondents herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet