1 2025:CGHC:45811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 247 of 2018 Mohit Kumar S/o Samaru Ram Aged About 45 Years Cast- Satnami, R/o Village- Jhal, Post- Gadamond, Tahsil- Navagarh, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Executive Officer Public Works Department Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, 3 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Its Presiding Officer Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Industrial Trubunal-Cum-Labour Court, Its Presiding Officer Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2025 2 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 31.07.2018 passed in Case No. 09/ID Act/2015/Reference by the Labour Court, Durg, whereby his claim for reinstatement was dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee on 01.02.1999 under the respondent department. His services were discontinued on 14.03.2000. He raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner only on 08.10.2013, i.e., after a delay of more than 13 years. The learned Labour Court, upon considering the material on record, held that the claim was hopelessly barred by limitation and further found that one month’s salary and retrenchment compensation had been paid in compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Circular dated 02.12.2012, issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and the authorities ought to have allowed him to resume duty. It is further argued that since a service book was prepared in his name, the petitioner had attained the status of a permanent employee and discontinuation him from services was in violation of Section 25F and Section 25G of the ID Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and supports the award of the Labour Court. It is contended that the petitioner’s services were discontinued way back on 14.03.2000 and the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was moved only on 08.10.2013, i.e., after a delay of more than 13 years. Reliance is placed on Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, inserted with effect from 15.09.2010, which prescribes a limitation period of three 3 years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination of service for raising an industrial dispute. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner approached the authorities in the year 2013, after 13 years. Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, inserted w.e.f. 15.09.2010, clearly bars a claim beyond three years from the date of termination. Even otherwise, the delay of more than a decade remains wholly unexplained. 7. From perusal of the record, the petitioner was paid one month’s salary of 1,823/- and retrenchment compensation of 20,877/-, in terms of ₹ ₹ Section 25F of the ID Act. There is no material to show that he ever approached the authorities in pursuance of the Circular dated 02.12.2012. 8. In view of the above, I find no error in the award dated 31.07.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim