1 2026:CGHC:23867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9378 of 2022 K. P. Thomas, S/o Late Shri K. N.Pappachan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Qtr. No. 1-A, Street No. 15, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Through The Managing Director, 5, Bentinck Street, 1st Floor, Kokata 700001. (Hr And Admin) M/s Jai Balalji Industries Ltd. (Durg Division), Borai Industrial Growth Centre Village And P.O, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 491009 3 - The General Manager (Hr And Admin) M/s Jai Balalji Industries Ltd. (Durg Division), Borai Industrial Growth Centre Village And P.O, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 491009 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ setting aside the impugned Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 order dated 08/11/2017 and the respondent company is ordered to take the petitioner back into service with all the consequential benefits, including the salary arrears as shown in his advocate's notice (ANNEXURE P/10). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow any other relief as it deems fit.” 2. The petitioner was engaged vide order dated 22.02.1992 as a labourer under the respondent. His services were terminated vide order dated 08.11.2017. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. An application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter representations were also made. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination on the ground that he was a regular employee and before issuance of order impugned, no show- cause notice was issued to him, nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. 4. Mr. Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Labour Court, as he was an employee of a private limited company. He would further contend that the petitioner has not placed on record any order of appointment or regularization in services; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the State at length and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It appears that an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and conciliation proceedings were initiated. It is evident that claims were filed before the learned Labour Court by similarly situated labourers and proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were also initiated, therefore, in my opinion, the present petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 3 7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent Labour Court in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if so advised. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim