1 2025:CGHC:56050 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 61 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Engineer Research, Irrigation Building, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director, Hydrometeorology, Irrigation Building, Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Dy, Director Hydrometeorology, Division No. 4, Irrigation Colony, Shantinagar, Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioners versus Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Shri Johanlal Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jheepan, Post Ravan, Tahsil Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. and Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate and Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WPS No. 450 of 2019 1 - Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Johan Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Jhipan, Post Rawan, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Water Resource Department, Through Director, Jal Mausam Vigyan, Sinchai Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director, Jal Mausam Vigyan, Division No. 4, Sinchai Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate and Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. and Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. The acceptance of WPL No. 61/2014 forms the basis for the existence of WPS No. 450/2019 and both the cases relate to the award dated 31.12.2013 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Raipur (C.G.) whereby employee - Ashok Kumar Verma has been directed to be reinstated in employment of Respondent-Department without backwages, therefore, both the case are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. [For the sake of convenience, WPL No. 61 of 2014 would be taken-up as lead case] 3 2. WPL No. 61 of 2014 has been filed by appellant /State seeking relief of quashment of impugned order dated 31.12.2023 passed by Labour Court No. 2, Raipur whereby employee Ashok Kumar Verma has been directed to be reinstated without backwages, whereas, WPS No. 450/2019 has been filed by employee – Ashok Kumar Verma for his regularization in service. 3. The imperative facts required to be noticed for adjudication of these petitions are that on being reference made by Assistant Labour Commissioner, C.G. Raipur under Section 10(1) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth, 'ID Act, 1947') for adjudication on the legality and propriety of retrenchment of employee – Ashok Kumar Verma, he filed statement of claim stating inter alia that he was appointed as daily wager by Respondent - Water Resources Department / Hydrometeorology on 12.8.1992 against the vacant and permanent post of Gage Reader. Thereafter, he was continuously working on the said post till 31.01.2000, but he was removed from employment by respondent No. 3 vide order No. 240 / dailywage employee on the ground that major and minor irrigation schemes running in the department for many years have been completed and due to shortage of budget and work, it has been decided to terminate the service of daily wage employees, who were appointed after 31.12.1988. As a result thereof, they were being dismissed from work, as they are not required furthermore by giving them one month's salary in lieu of notice. 4. Respondent/State before Labour Court filed their reply denying the claim of employee that he was appointed against the permanent and vacant post of Gage Reader. However, it was admitted that employment of employee was legally terminated vide order dated 31.1.2000. It was further pleading of respondent/State that said employee was engaged as a daily wage labourer with the Respondent-Department for construction of major and 4 minor irrigation projects as per requirement of work. Upon completion of work, the Labour was no longer needed, therefore, employment of the employee was terminated vide order dated 31.01.2000 by paying him one month's wages in lieu of notice amounting to Rs.1,931/- through a Bank Draft dated 31.1.2000 and he was also paid retrenchment compensation of Rs.11,365/- through a Bank Draft dated 15.02.2000. 5. Based on pleading of both the parties, learned Labour Court framed following issue :- Ø- fook|d fu"d"kZ 1- D;k lsok lekfIr ds pkj o"kZ i'pkr izLrqr vkosnu fopkj ;ksX; gS\ Þgk¡Þ 2- D;k vukosnd }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj NaVuh eqvkotk ,oa vU; ns; jkf’k dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ds i'pkr fnukad 31@1@2000 ls dh x;h vkosnd v’kksd dqekj oekZ dh NaVuh voS/k gS\ ;fn gka rks vukosnd i{k dks D;k funsZ’k fn;k tkuk pkfg,\ Þgk¡] izFke i{k fcuk iwoZHkkoh osru ds iwoZ in ij iqufuZ;ksftr fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gSAÞ 6. Both the parties adduced oral & documentary evidence in support of their claim. Employee- Ashok Kumar Verma examined himself and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Department of Hydrometeorology was examined by the State. 7. After considering evidence brought by both the parties , learned Labour Court vide impugned award dated 31.12.2013 held that the employee has worked with the respondent-Department from 12.8.1992 to 31.1.2000, as such, he worked for more than 240 days in a preceding year prior to date of his termination, despite that he has been retrenched without following the due procedure prescribed in Section 25 F & 25 G of the ID Act, 1947, as such, he is entitled for reinstatement in employment, therefore, respondent-State was directed to re-instate employee – Ashok Kumar Verma without backwages. 5 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, respondent / State has filed WPL No. 61/2014 and on the basis of impugned award passed by Labour Court, employee – Ashok Kumar Verma has filed WPS No. 450 / 2019 for his regularization in service. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State /Department would submit that employee- Ashok Kumar Verma was engaged in employment as Casual Labour on daily wages. His employment was utilized by the State/Department whenever the work was available. Therefore, he had not worked for 240 days in any preceding years, consequently, the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the instant case. He further submits that the employees were engaged during construction of major & minor irrigation projects as per requirement and upon completion of the work, their utility was no longer needed, budget was also not allotted by the Government for the same, therefore, employment of employee was terminated by paying him one month's wages Rs.1,931/- through a Bank Draft dated 31.1.2000 alongwith retrenchment compensation of Rs.11,365/- through a Bank Draft dated 15.02.2000, therefore, finding recorded by the Labour Court that employment of employee – Ashok Kumar Verma has been terminated against the provisions contained in Section 25F & 25G of the ID Act, 1947 is wholly perverse and illegal, hence, he prayed that WPL No. 61/2014 filed by the State-Department may be allowed. He further submits that since impugned award dated 31.12.2013 passed by Labour Court deserves to be set aside, as such, prayer made by employee for regularization of his service in WPS No. 450 of 2019 also deserves to be rejected. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for employee – Ashok Kumar Verma would submit that learned Labour Court has specifically 6 recorded a finding that the employee has not only worked as daily wage employee was respondent-Department for about 8 years, rather it has also been held that he has worked for it for more than 240 days in a preceding year prior to date of his termination from employment. Respondent - Department has not filed any document to demonstrate the fact that employment of employee was not utilized on daily basis, rather his employment was utilized only as per requirement. He further submits that in compliance of provision contained in Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947, the employee is being paid last pay drawn by him. He further submits that in case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1 , learned Division Bench of this High Court has held that, 'the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order.' He would further submit that in Writ Appeal No. 98 / 2016 {Sewan Kumar Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other connected matters } and in Writ Appeal No. 568/2015 and other connected matters, employees were appointed as daily wage employee in Water Resource Department / Hydrometeorology Department, who were also retrenched by the Department alongwith employee Ashok Kumar Verma (petitioner of instant petition). But in aforesaid writ appeals, learned Division Bench has granted relief to the employees of those batch of petitions, therefore, learned counsel prays that both the instant petitions filed by the State and employee Ashok Kumar Verma be decided as per terms of judgment rendered by learned Division Bench, which was also upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5813 / 2017 { S.L.P. (c) No. 36862 / 2016} (State of CG & another vs. Krishna Kumar Kashyap and other connected cases) vide order dated 01.5.2017. 1 (2017) LIC 3084 7 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. From perusal of deposition of employee – Ashok Kumar Verma and Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Department of Hydrometeorology, who has been examined by Respondent-State alongwith documentary evidence i.e. Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.3-C, Ex.P-4C, Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, it is found that learned Labour Court has rightly held that employee – Ashok Kumar Verma worked with the respondent-Department from 12.8.1992, till his retrenchment dated 31.01.2000. Thus, he continuously worked with the Respondent-Department for more than 240 days in a preceding year prior to date of his termination. From perusal of evidence available on record, it is also found that learned Labour Court has also rightly held that removal of said employee from employment is against the provisions contained in Section 25F & 25G of the ID Act, 1947, as retrenchment compensation was not paid to him on the date of his removal from employment and provision of ‘Last come First Go’ was also not complied with. Therefore, finding recorded by learned Labour Court that retrenchment of employee – Ashok Kumar Verma was against the provisions of Sections 25F & 25G of the ID Act, 1947 is upheld. 13. So far as relief granted by the Labour Court to the employee for his reinstatement in employment without backwages is concerned, earlier, the settled principle was that once retrenchment / termination was held to be illegal or violative of provisions of the ID Act, 1947, normal rule was reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. But in recent past, aforesaid view has been slightly shifted from earlier position by the Apex Court. The judgments referred to / relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner were prior to aforesaid shifting of the view by the Apex Court. 8 14. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would 2 (2014) 7 SCC 177 9 receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.” 15. Aforesaid case was further followed by the Apex Court in the case of District Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia3 and State of Uttrakhand & another vs. Rajkumar 4 16. Issue involved was further considered by Full Bench of this High Court in reference case i.e. Writ Appeal No. 355 of 2014 {Surit Ram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another and other connected matters}, in which, apart from other question referred to the Full Bench, following question was also considered by learned Full Bench vide order dated 29.8.2025 :- “ Whether in a case where retrenchment of the workmen is held to be violative of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen is automatically entitled to be reinstated or can 3 (2018) 12 SCC 298 4 (2019) 14 SCC 353 10 compensation be granted in place of reinstatement ?” 17. Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court after considering various judgments has held in paragraph 22 & 23 as under :- “22. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board {(2009) 15 SCC 327}, the Supreme Court held that relief of reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. Instead, compensation may be adequate relief, particularly where the workman was employed for a short term or on daily wages. In Bhurumal (supra), compensation instead of reinstatement was awarded; and automatic reinstatement was held to be no longer the rule. The current legal position is that no automatic reinstatement can be awarded even if retrenchment is held to be illegal. The relief depends on factors such as (i) nature of employment (permanent / daily wager) (ii) length of service (iii) delay in raising dispute, (iv) whether reinstatement is practicable or equitable. 23. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is increasingly granted, especially where reinstatement is impractical. A permanent / regular employee with long service is likely to get reinstatement, of course, subject to equities and on the contrary, a daily wager/ short term workers 11 or where claims are raised belatedly, are likely to get monetary compensation instead of reinstatement. As such, it can be concluded that when retrenchment is held violative of the ID Act, reinstatement in service is not automatic. The Court/Tribunal has discretion, based on facts and equities, to award compensation instead of reinstatement, and this has become the prevailing trend of the Hon’ble Apex Court in recent years.” 18. Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court and Full Bench of this High Court to the facts of the case, then it is quite vivid that Ashok Kumar Verma, who is employee of instant case, worked only for about 8 years with respondents- Department and he was retrenched from his employment at a young age, hence he has enough time to engage in some other work or profession. He is out of employment since 25 years, therefore, having considered aforesaid facts and principle of law laid down by learned Apex Court and learned Full Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that instead of granting reinstatement to the said employee, it would be just and proper to award lump sum monetary compensation to him. 19. Consequently, WPL No. 61/2014 filed by State / Department is allowed in part. Impugned award of reinstatement passed in favour of the employee alongwith without backwages is modified and in lieu thereof, the Respondent- Department is directed to grant lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to employee – Ashok Kumar Verma. It is further directed that aforesaid amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order, failing which, employee shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum, till realization of the aforesaid amount. 12 20. Since impugned award dated 31.12.2013 passed by Labour Court No. 2 – Raipur in Case No.01/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. has been allowed only to the extent of removal of employee – Ashok Kumar Verma from employment was illegal, but order of his reinstatement in employment passed by Labour Court has been set aside, instead thereof, he has been held entitled to get lump sum compensation from the respondent-Department, therefore, WPS No. 450/2019 filed by employee – Ashok Kumar Verma, wherein, he has sought relief of regularization cannot be allowed. Hence, WPS No. 450/2019 filed by employee – Ashok Kumar Verma deserves to be rejected. 21. Accordingly, WPL No. 61/2024 filed by respondent – Department is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove and WPS No. 450 / 2019 filed by employee – Ashok Kumar Verma is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.19 11:05:33 +0530