1 2026:CGHC:24743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 170 of 2019 1. Emmanuel Hospital Association, Through Regional Director ( Central ) 808/92, Deepali Building, Nehru Palace, New Delhi - 110019 2. The Senior Administrative Officer, Christian Hospital Champa Tehsil- Champa, Post - Champa, District Janjgir - Champa - 495671 --- Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Noorjahan Singh W/o Shri Harisingh Jat, Ex. Billing Clerk of Christian Hospital Champa, Post And Tehsil - Champa, District Janjgir - Champa - 495671 R/o Residential Quarter At Christian Hospital Campus, Post And Tehsil - Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 206 of 2019  Smt. Noorjahan Singh W/o Shri Hari Singh Jat Aged About 47 Years R/o Christian Hospital Champa, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Emmanuel Hospital Association Through Regional Director (Central), 808/92, Deepali Buliding Nehru Place New Delhi- 1100019, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. The Senior Administrative Officer Christian Hospital Champa, Tahsil Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 170 of 2019 For Petitioners :- Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 14:29:05 +0530 2 For Respondent : Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate WPL No. 206 of 2019 For Petitioner :- Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.06 .2026 WPL No. 170 of 2019 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. 2. No objection from the other side. 3. Permission granted. 4. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. WPL No. 206 of 2019 5. 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. 01/ID Act/Ref/2017. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to modify the award dated 11/04/2019 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer under the Industrial Dispute Act cum Labour Court, Janjgir-Champa in case No. 01/IDACT/2018 (reference) pronounced on 17/06/2019 and granted full back wages. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant all consequential benefit including full back wages and continuity of service. 3 10.4. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 6. The fact in brief are that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Billing Clerk under the respondents on 24.12.1990. She worked there till 15.04.2017, and thereafter her services were discontinued without issuance of show-cause notice. The petitioner moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and thereafter, matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court according to provisions of Section 10 of the ID Act. The petitioner filed statement of claim wherein she pleaded that she was Class – III employee working under the respondents. She was appointed on 24.12.1999 and her services were discontinued on 15.04.2017. It was also pleaded that her services were transferred to Lakhnadon Christian Hospital, Lakhnadon, District Sheoni (M.P.) vide order dated 21.03.2017 and she was required to join there by 22.04.2017, but she could not join there, and therefore, she was removed from services. It is further pleaded that no show- cause notice was issued, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no enquiry was conducted, and therefore, the decision of the respondent is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. The respondents filed reply to the statement of claim. They pleaded that services of the petitioner were transferred and she was required to join the services at transferred place by 22.04.2017, but she failed to join services, therefore according to policy, her services were terminated. The learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award of reinstatement without back-wages was passed on 11.04.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Labour Court found the decision of discontinuation of service illegal and bad in law, 4 and therefore, petitioner is entitled for back-wages. She would submit that the petitioner adduced sufficient evidence to establish her claim, but her claim was not considered. 8. On the other hand, Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate would submit that in the entire statement of claim, there is no whisper with regard to back-wages. It is argued that in the evidence, the petitioner failed to state that she was not gainfully employed during said period, and therefore, she has rightly been denied back-wages by the learned Labour Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 10. Perusal of statement of claim would make it clear that petitioner has nowhere pleaded the fact with regard to back-wages. It is also not pleaded that she was not allowed to join services at transferred place. The petitioner also failed to state that she was not gainfully employed anywhere for period from 15.04.2017 till 11.04.2019, and therefore, no issue was framed by the learned Labour Court in this regard. In the evidence also, the petitioner could not establish the fact that she is entitled for back-wages. 11. The learned Labour Court has rightly passed an award of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner, but back-wages have been declined in absence of material. 12. Taking into consideration the pleadings made in the statement of claim, evidence adduced by the petitioner and other documents placed on record, in my opinion, the learned Labour Court has rightly declined back-wages to the petitioner. 13. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 5 14. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant