1 Reserved on- 02.03.2026 Delivered on- 15.06.2026 Uploaded on- 15.06.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 164 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - The Executive Engineer, Hasdev Barrage Water Management Division, Rampur, Ps. Korba Distt. Korba C.G. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Hasdev Electrical Engineering (Repair & Store), Water Resources Sub Division Darri P.S. Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Umeshwar Nimbalkar S/o Narayan Rao Aged About 48 Years R/o Behind House No. A/13, Irrigation Colony, Rampur Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. 2 - The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba, P.S. Korba Distt. Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Shri R.K.Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) CAV Order Assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 25/02/2014 declared on 29/03/2014 by the Labour Court, Korba, CG in case 2 No.17/I.D.Act/2013/Reference, this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/State. 2. Facts in brief - Respondent No.1 is said to have been working with the petitioners from 16/04/1989 to 28/02/1995. Thereafter, he was removed. A claim statement was filed by respondent No.1 before the learned Labour Court on a reference being made by Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D.Act’). According to the statement of claim, respondent No.1 was appointed on 16/04/1989 as daily wage labourer on vacant and permanent post of the petitioners, Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources, Darri, Korba. His performance was satisfactory and he was never given any warning or imposed with punishment. He continued to work from 16/04/1989 to 28/02/1995. He was illegally retrenched from the work on 01/03/1995. He had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year preceding his termination and attained the status of a permanent employee. His juniors are still working with the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein has not complied with the provisions contained in Section 25 (g) (h) and (f) of the I.D.Act. Thus, with a prayer of re- instatement in service with full back wages was made in the statement of claim. 3. The written statement was filed by the petitioners herein and denied that respondent No.1 was engaged as daily wage labourer. It was pleaded that the daily wage labourers are purely temporary and are engaged according to the requirement of work. After completion of work, they are removed. As per certain executive instructions issued in the year 1995, the daily wage employee engaged after 31/12/1988 were removed from service. The statement of claim was filed after 16 years from the alleged retrenchment being barred by limitation. Thus, it was prayed that the statement of claim may be rejected. 4. Learned Labour Court framed two issues on the basis of above pleadings, one is as to whether retrenchment of respondent No.1 was valid and legal. The other issue is with respect to the directions which could be issued. The parties led their evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The learned Labour Court vide impugned award, on assessment of the material available on record decided issue No.1 in favour of respondent No.1, however, taking into consideration that the 3 claim statement was filed after 16 years of retrenchment, respondent No.1 was not entitled for any back wages on the principle of no work no wages. 5. Mr. R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/State vehemently argued that vide impugned award, learned Labour Court has taken into consideration a stale claim and thus, committed an error of law in granting relief of reinstatement in favour of respondent No.1. She submits that though no period of limitation was prescribed for filing statement of claim at that point of time, however, the delay itself is inductive of the fact that for all those years, respondent No.1 had accepted his fate of retrenchment and moved ahead in his life which is also reflected from his cross-examination where he has admitted that he is performing his job somewhere else. She further submits that the stale claim which has been allowed by the learned Labour Court deserves to be set aside and for this purpose, she placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and anr., (2015) 15 SCC 1 particularly paragraphs 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42.3. She also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Murari Sharma (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.444 of 2024) order dated 17/12/2025 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration that there was delay in seeking the reference, instead of re-instatement, compensation was awarded. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, she submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Apart from this, she submits that the appointment of respondent No.1 was only of temporary nature and as per the need of the hour, he was appointed which fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court. Apart from this, the respondent No.1 was not able to prove his case that he worked for more than 240 days in a calender year preceding his alleged retrenchment. Thus, she submits that the impugned order may be set aside by allowing this writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the above submission and submits that there is no specific limitation prescribed in filing the statement of claim earlier under the I.D.Act. Ofcourse, the stale claim may not be entertained by the learned Labour Court but the factual scenario in this case is altogether different. The respondent No.1 was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25(g) (e) (f) of the I.D.Act from 01/03/1995. The reference 4 under Section 10 of the I.D.Act was made by respondent No.1 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner sometime in the year 2002. He further submits that reply to that reference was made by the petitioners herein in the year 2009. After conciliation proceedings failed, the reference was forwarded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court and within 2-3 years, the application was made by the respondent No.1. Thus, considering the fact that there was no limitation and as such, there was no delay of 16 years as contemplated and observed by the learned Labour Court, the objection raised by the petitioners herein cannot stand. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. the Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cu-procession service Society Ltd. and anr. reported in (1999) AIR (SCW) 1051. He submits that in that case, there was delay of about 7 years in making the statement of claim. Even then Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained the order of reinstatement with back wages. 7. In reply to this, Mr. Gupta submits that this fact was never taken in the said application neither it was considered by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the fact remains that there is a delay of about 16 years in making the reference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was sleeping over his right for inordinate period of time and woke up from slumber after almost 16 years and thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches. However, learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that there is no specific limitation prescribed for filing the claim under the ID Act and in deserving cases the delay may not be fatal to the legitimate claim of the workman. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised at the bar it would be apt to have a glance to the reference report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba which is part of the record of the learned labour Court. According to him, the respondent made an application for his reinstatement on0 7.10.2008. According to the case of the respondent he was retrenched on 28.02.1995 and thus it can safely be gathered that the application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba was submitted by the respondent on 07.10.2008 and not in the year 2002 as submitted by Shri Deshmukh. Thus, there 5 is a delay of about 13 years in making such application. From the reference report it also appears that reply to the application was made on 19.06.2009, meeting of conciliation was held on 26.08.2009 and on 19.12.2012. However, the conciliation proceeding failed and therefore a reference was sent to the learned labour court for adjudication. For ready reference, the reference is required to be quoted as under: “1. क्या आवेदक श्री उमेश्वेर निम्बालकर निता श्री रयाण रवे क द्वार सेवेमेनि क 16 वेर्ष उरता प्रस्ताता सेवे निवेवेद निवेचारणया है# ? यानिद है$ ता% क्या सेवे &थक(करण वे#ध एवे उनिचाता है# ? 2. यानिद है+ ता% तात्सेबाध मे- अवेदक क% क्या निद/श निदया जा उनिचाता है# ?” 10. Perusal of reference would indicate that its a three fold reference. First whether a service dispute raised by the respondent after 16 years of his termination from service is triable? If yes, whether the retrenchment of the respondent from service is valid and proper? If not, what direction can be issued to the petitioner? 11. Statement of claim was submitted by the respondent before the learned labour court on 11.07.2013. Reply to the said statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner on 13.08.2013 taking a specific stand that the claim was made by the respondent after 16 years which is not maintainable being barred by limitation. Issue in terms of reference were framed by the learned labour Court. On assessment of the material available on record brought by the respective parties, the labour court held the retrenchment of the respondent illegal and granted reinstatement. It however observed that as the statement of claim was filed after a lapse of 16 years, the respondent is not entitled to get any back wages. 12. The reference so sent requires the learned labour Court to adjudicate upon each points as it has not recorded any finding as to the fact that the service dispute raised after 16 years of termination is triable after the finding is recorded in positive. The next point of reference i.e. whether the retrenchment of the respondent from service is valid and proper. Thus the learned labour Court erred 6 in not recording any finding on this issue with regard to triability of the service disputes as raised in terms of the reference made to it. Though a considerable period of time has gone by, even then a positive finding on the issue as stated above ought to have been recorded by the learned labour Court hence this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned labour Court for decision-making on this issue. As this Court has refrained from giving any finding with regard to delay and laches, with due respect the respective case laws cited by the counsel for the parties at this stage are not being delved upon. 13. Thus, this writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned labour court to pass appropriate order with regard to triability of the service dispute raised by the respondent in terms of the reference made to it after 16 years of the retrenchment of the respondent. 14. Since the matter is old one, it is expected that the learned labour Court shall pass appropriate order as directed above within a period of 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties shall appear before the labour Court 20.07.2026. Record be sent back forthwith. 15. As a consequence, the petition is partly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.06.15 17:18:32 +0530