1 2025:CGHC:16900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 113 of 2015 1 - Ghurauram Chauhan S/o Shri Nankiram Chauhan, Aged About 35 Years R/o At Village - Tilgi, Tahsil Pusaur, Civil And Revenue District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintendent, Pre - Matric Girls Hostel Bonda, Block Baramkela, Dsitrict Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Mandal Sanyojak, Aadiwasi Development - Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Assistant Commissioner, Aadiwasi Development Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Labur Court, Raigarh, Through Its Presiding Officer, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For State Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 11.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by setting aside/ modify the impugned award dated 16-10-2014, passed by the Respondent No. 6 (Labour Court, Raigarh), in Case No. 07/I.D. Act/2013/ Reference. (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ direction to the respondents authority to reinstate the petitioner in his service and also allow the full salary and back wages from the date of termination and other consequential benefit. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction to the respondent authority/ employer to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents authority and pleased to grant other relief in favour of the petitioner, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) while partly allowing the statement of claim, directed the respondents to make payment of retrenchment allowance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- only. He would further submit that the termination of services of the petitioner has been found illegal by the learned Labour Court, therefore, he would pray that the petition may be allowed and the order passed by the learned Labour Court may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Naik. He would submit that in the absence of a vacancy, the order with regard to reinstatement was not passed by the learned Labour Court and according to the provisions of Section 25(F) of 3 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), wages of one month was awarded to the petitioner. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner filed a statement of claim inter alia on the ground that he worked as a Cook under respondent No.2 from 26.07.2007 till 30.04.2009 and his services were discontinued by an oral order. The petitioner as well as the respondents have admitted this fact that initially, the petitioner was receiving wages to the tune of Rs.2,877/- per month. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the discontinuation of services of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 but in the absence of a vacancy, the order of reinstatement was not passed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court directed the respondents to make a payment of Rs.7,000/- as a retrenchment allowance. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner worked under respondent No.2 for a period of one year and eight months and there is a finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the termination of services of the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed by the learned Labour Court requires modification. As the discontinuation/termination of the services of the petitioner has been held illegal by the learned Labour Court and the same has not been challenged by the State by filing a writ petition, the -4- respondents are directed to make a payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha