1 2025:CGHC:3294-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 19 of 2025 Abdul Rab Quareshi S/o Shri Abdul Razzaque Qureshi Aged About 74 Years Truck Driver Retired, R/o Shyam Nagar, Gurudwara Road, Near Ata Chakki, Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Raipur C.G. 2 - Divisional Manager Barnawapara Project, C.G. Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., Office Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Collector Durg, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.01.2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 09.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(L) No. 19 of 2020 (Abdul Rub Quareshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner / appellant herein was appointed as Truck Driver in the 'Van Vikas Nigam' on temporary basis on 05.01.1981, thereafter, he was regularized in the services on 21.01.1984 and posted under the Divisional Manger, Barnawapara Project Division, Raipur. The writ petitioner joined the service on monthly wages of Rs.1,400/-. All of a sudden on 15.02.1988, writ petitioner and his four colleagues were retrenched from the employment by respondent authorities, to which industrial dispute was raised. The case was referred to Labour Court, Durg on 07.03.1994 and the Labour Court, Durg passed an award of reinstatement of writ petitioner as Truck Driver in Case No.6/ 93 I.D. Act (Ref.). Since salary of the writ petitioner has wrongly been fixed, therefore, on application under Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 filed by him for correct pay fixation, vide order dated 03.10.1997, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur held that the writ petitioner is entitled 3 to get monthly salary of Rs.1,750/- alongwith other emoluments after his reinstatement in employment. It is further held that the writ petitioner is entitled to get difference of amount of Rs.60,464/-, but despite aforesaid order, the writ petitioner was denied to provide all the perquisites and benefits, therefore, writ petitioner filed writ petition No. 2604 of 1994 before this Court challenging the order dated 7.3.1994 passed by Labour Court in Case No. 6/93/I.D. Act (Ref.), in which, vide order dated 19th April, 2006, this Court remitted back the matter to the Labour Court to take decision in accordance with law. In pursuance of that, Labour Court has decided the case afresh vide order dated 24.4.2007 holding that retrenchment of the writ petitioner from 15.02.1988 is illegal, but no monetary benefits in terms of pay fixation, arrears, backwages, pension and gratuity, etc. has been given to the writ petitioner, therefore, the writ petitioner filed WP(L) No. 19 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.05.2024. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single judge has failed to see that while passing an award by the labour court when holds that the order of retrenchment is illegal and then by not awarding the back wages to the appellant is contrary to law. Further, the other 3 employees who have been retrenched by the same order of respondents has also been challenged by them and the same labour court while passing the order not only declared the order of retrenchment illegal but has also awarded 4 the back wages but not awarded the same to the appellant. Also, the respondents who have taken the plea that the differences of amounts has been adjusted has not stated anything about the payments of back wages and also the consequential benefits to the appellant, as has been paid to other 3 employees but the same has not been considered by the learned single judge. The learned Single Judge has also failed to consider the fact that though it is true that the writ petitioner got appointed as a tractor driver on 08.07.1988, after being retrenched as a truck driver on 15.02.1988, but still, it is the contention of the petitioner that, the salary that he had received for his job as a tractor driver was considerably less than his job as a truck driver. This difference of amount in his salary for the period from 08.07.1988, when the petitioner started work as a tractor driver from the period till getting re-instated as a truck driver on 27.01.1995 is what the petitioner had asked for, along with deserved increments, and promotional, and other benefits, due had he not been illegally retrenched. By denying the consequential benefits, including arrears of backwages along with increments promotional and other benefits and also denying similar treatment with identically placed individuals the learned labour court had acted in violation of the principles of law as declared and established by way of various judgments of this Hon'ble High Court and also the apex court and therefore violated the common law of the land and also acted arbitrary and disproportionately thereby violating the 5 fundamental right of the petitioner under article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in non-observance of various statutory acts Pand rules. Therefore the learn it single judge while observing in paragraph 10 of the impugned order that there was no irregularity or legality committed error. It is the contention of the petitioner that material facts were not considered by the learned labour court in the impugned order by the learned single judge and therefore there was also injustice caused to the writ petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that as per impugned award dated 24.04.2007 passed by Labour Court, Durg, the writ petitioner was retrenched from his employment on 15.02.1988, but subsequently, he was reinstated in his employment on 8.7.1988 and was posted as Tractor Driver in the Chhattisgarh Van Vikas Nigam. It is further reflected from the award that he was 6 posted as Truck Driver on 27.01.1995. Letter dated 29.07.2003 written by Divisional Manager, Barnawapara Project, Raipur Chhattisgarn Division to Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam, Raipur would show that in pursuance of the order passed by the labour Court, difference of amount for the period from 8.4.1994 to 30.6.1996 of Rs.60,464/- and from July, 1996 to January, 1999, Rs.33,542/- was given to the writ petitioner observing his basic salary as Rs.1,750/- per month. Respondent No. 2 has submitted factual aspect with regard to payment of arrears and various amounts to the writ petitioner in detail in its reply, further Document R-2/1 shows that amount of difference / arrears has been given to the writ petitioner and he has also been given gratuity as well as EPF. Further, perusal of contents of writ petition does not disclose actual grievance of the writ petitioner, rather facts projected by him are vague with regard to pay fixation, arrears of backwages, full pension, gratuity and salary etc. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. As such, 7 the present writ appeal stands dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet