1 2026:CGHC:25922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 205 of 2018 P. Chintami W/o Akaiya Aged About 47 Years R/o Block No. 3f. Street No. 59, Sector - 6, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - President Parent Teacher Association, B S P English Medium Middle School, Sector - 7, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary - Cum - Principal, Parent Teacher Association B S P English Medium Middle School Sector - 7, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director, Sail, Bsp Bhilai ( Now Chief Executive Officer ), District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Labour Commissioner, Labour Court Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For State /Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the uncommunicated termination order passed by the respondent No.2 and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work in the post of Sweeper in the school maintained by the respondents. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the service of the petitioner on the post of Sweeper and also be pleased to grant the back wages. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against an oral termination of services of the petitioner by respondent No. 2- Principal, B.S.P. English Medium Middle School, Bhilai. The impugned action is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 451 of 2015, pursuant to which the petitioner was allowed to rejoin services. The act of the respondent(s) amounts to overreaching the order passed in Contempt Case No. 189 of 2016, wherein direction was issued for reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back wages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sweeper under respondent No.1, which is managed by the management of Bhilai Steel Plant. Her services were discontinued orally by the respondent authorities. He would submit that the petitioner assailed the said order under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Labour Court, vide order dated 05.02.2011, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Sweeper with 50% back wages. He would 3 contend that the respondent authorities challenged the said order before this Court by filing WPL No.49 of 2012, which was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2015. He would further contend that the order dated 14.07.2015 was challenged by way of Writ Appeal No.451 of 2015 by the petitioner and the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the said appeal on 03.11.2015 with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner and similarly situated employees to join service on 01.12.2015 at 11:00 A.M. He would also submit that the order dated 03.11.2015 was not complied with and thereafter a contempt petition (CONT No.189 of 2016) was filed against respondent No.2, wherein directions were issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to visit the school on 01.08.2016. The petitioner and similarly situated employees were paid the entire 50% back wages on or before 30.09.2016. The Principal and the Parent Teachers Association shall ensure payment of minimum wages to the petitioner from 01.12.2015. He would submit that pursuant to orders passed in Writ Appeal and Contempt petition, petitioner was permitted to join services, but subsequently, services of the petitioner were again discontinued without issuance of a show cause notice; thus, he would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner in the 4 present case requires adjudication by the competent Labour Court. It is argued that the present petition, in its present form, is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Sweeper, her services were discontinued by respondents No.1, 2 and 3. The said decision was challenged before the learned Labour Court and an order of reinstatement was passed on 05.12.2011. 7. In WPL No.49 of 2012, the order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the learned Labour Court was set aside, but in Writ Appeal No.451 of 2015, the same was restored. A contempt petition was also filed, thereafter the petitioner was permitted to join services. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner have again been discontinued by an oral order by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, against which, the instant petition has been preferred. 8. Earlier, the services of the petitioner were discontinued and she approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and thereafter the competent Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement. 9. As there is a dispute between the employer and employee, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to raise an industrial dispute before the competent Labour Court. 10. Disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition. The petitioner herein sought relief of reinstatement in service, which involves 5 adjudication of disputed questions of fact; thus, the petition in its present form is not maintainable and is accordingly hereby dismissed. 11. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law, if so advised. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim