1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 17 of 2019  Shatrughan Yadav S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Bajarpara, Post - Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Assistant Research Officer, Quality Control Central Laboratory, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record from the respondent authority as well as call for the records of the Case No. 44/ID Act/Ref./2012. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the award dated 14/09/2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer under the Industrial Dispute Act cum Labour Court, Janjgir Champa in case No. 44/ID Act/2012 (reference) pronounced on 14/11/2018. 10.3. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold that the action on the part of respondent in respect of termination/ retrenchment of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.10 17:52:18 +0530 2 10.4. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit including back wages and continuity of service.” 2. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate would submit that though the petitioner claimed reinstatement with full back-wages before the learned Labour Court and the reference was decided against him. He would contend that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was permitted to work under the respondent and his services have been regularized vide order dated 28.02.2020. He would further contend that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed as his services have been regularized. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would endorse the submissions made by Mr. Abhishek Singh. 4. Heard. 5. Considering the fact that the services of the petitioner have already been regularized with the respondent/State, there is no need to pass any specific order in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of. 6. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer, if cause of action arises in near future. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant