1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 150 of 2016 1 - Mahesh Singh S/o Late Ram Lal Singh, Aged About 55 Years R/o Domanpur Post Bandha, Thana And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer, Mini Mata Bango Nahar, Sub Divison No 17 Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Exectuive Engineer Hasdev Nahar, Jal Prabandhan Division Janjgir, Distirct Janjgir Champa Chattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.24/I.D.Act/Reference/2012, dated 30.03.2016 whereby the statement of claim presented by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- as a daily wage employee under the respondents on 18.08.1989. The services of the petitioner were discontinued on 02.06.1995 and it appears that an oral order of termination dated 03.06.1995 was issued by respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner having raised a dispute, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Bilaspur to decide “whether the dispute raised after about 16 years is time barred, if not then the termination of services of the petitioner is legal and just pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, if not, then what relief can be granted to the petitioner.” 4. The Labour Court vide award dated 30/03/2016 answered the question of Limitation in favour of the petitioner and held that the petitioner had established that he was in continuous employment for a period of more than 240 days immediately before the discontinuance from services. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the petitioner had worked as a daily-wage earner from 18.08.1989 to 03.06.1995 and he is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of reinstatement. 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85, and 3 District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298. 6. Before the Labour Court, the age of the petitioner was shown as 51 years in 2012 and while filing the writ petition on 01.08.2016, his age was 55 years. The issue with regard to the reinstatement of the services of the petitioner has become more or less academic as he has already attained the age of superannuation. 7. The next issue with regard to the lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the order of reinstatement can not be passed in favor of the workman. 8. In Bhurumal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs considering 3 year service period. In the matter of BSNL v. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 an award of Rs. 2 lakhs for each of the workmen was granted for their regular work of 240 days as daily rated employees. 9. In Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank v. Panchamlal Yadav, Civil Appeal No.9792/2010 decided on 13.07.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a daily rated employee who worked for five years. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner worked for 6 years whereas the learned Labour Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- which appears to be on the lower side. In the attending facts and circumstances and particularly taking note of the judgments referred to herein above, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as a lump-sum payment towards compensation would meet the ends of justice. -4- 11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till its realization. 12. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha