1 2025:CGHC:3367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 997 of 2018 1 - Sarju Ram S/o Shobhit Aged About 48 Years R/o Post Jamgala, Tahsil And Police Station Lakhanpur, Civil And Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office Of The Sub Area Manager, Rgk Sub Area, Bishrampur Area, P.O. Ketka, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Senior Manager (Mining), Gayatri Mines, Bishrampur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 22.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner has been removed from services by way of major Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- punishment for certain misconduct vide Annexure P/1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as General Mazdoor Category-1 in SECL Gayatri Expansion Project and he was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The records would further show that a departmental enquiry was conducted in which according to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been given which is in violation of the principle of natural justice, as such, the punishment order is bad-in- law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was a workman and since the entire proceeding was conducted as per the standing orders of the company and disputed facts are involved, the writ petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that the petitioner who is a workman has a remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 where he can raise the dispute and thereafter the matter can be referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal where disputed facts regarding compliance of the principle of natural justice can be adjudicated. 4. Since the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the disputed facts are involved in this case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this juncture. It is directed that in case the petitioner raises an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and if the conciliation fails, the same shall be forwarded to the Central Government who in turn shall refer the matter to the Industrial 3 Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha