1 CGHC010250212016 2026:CGHC:28839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 32 of 2016 1 - Lalman S/o Raghunandan, Aged About 46 Years R/o Sadak No. Avenue A Quarter Number- 4, H. Zone No.1, Sector- 19, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Present Residing On This Adress , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Services, Santra Badi, District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Labour Court, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari as to quash the impugned order dated 08-09-2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2, by giving direction to the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in his service from the date of earlier award i.e. 06-12-2000 with all back wages. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order as to initiate contempt proceeding against the erring officer of respondent No.1 for -2- suppressing the material facts that the writ petition challenging the order dated 06-12-2000 passed by the respondent No.2, was dismissed on 07-10-2002 by this Hon'ble Court confirming the order dated 06- 12-2000. In the writ petition the respondent No.1 has suppressed that the petitioner was removed from service on 19-06-2001 ignoring the order dated 06- 12-2000 and after removing the petitioner from service, the writ petition was filed on 17-08-2001. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The facts in brief are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 01.12.1990 as a daily- wage employee under respondent No.1 and subsequently, his services were regularized vide order dated 08.01.1992 and he was paid regular wages payable to a permanent employee. Vide order dated 10.06.1996, the petitioner was removed from service without holding any inquiry in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). Against the order of removal, the petitioner moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred to the competent Court by the appropriate Government under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Vide order dated 06.12.2000, the petitioner was reinstated in service without back wages and the petitioner joined his service. A writ petition bearing WPS No.1851 of 2001 was filed by respondent No.1/State assailing the order dated 06.12.2000, and during pendency of said writ petition, services of the petitioner were again terminated by respondent No.1 vide order dated 3 19.06.2001 on the ground that there was no vacancy available. The aforestated writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2002. Aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2001, the petitioner again approached the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court vide award dated 08.09.2015 dismissed the statement of claim preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a temporary employee under respondent No.1 and in absence of vacancy, he has no right to claim reinstatement. 4. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 01.12.1990 and subsequently, his services were regularized vide order dated 08.01.1992. He would further submit that this fact is specifically mentioned in para 2 of award dated 08.09.2015 but learned Labour Court ignored this fact and recorded a finding that the petitioner was a temporary employee. He would contend that as the petitioner was a regular employee, respondent No.1 was under an obligation to conduct an inquiry before taking any decision with regard to termination of services of the petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would contend that the petitioner was a temporary employee and he was removed from services vide order dated 19.07.2001 and he did not work for 240 days in a calender year; therefore, the learned Court below rightly dismissed statement of claim filed by the petitioner. -4- He would submit that after removal of the petitioner, one Arun Verma has been appointed and there was no vacancy and it was not possible for respondent No.1 to accommodate the petitioner. He would contend that this fact has duly been considered by the learned Labour Court. He would further submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the observations made in WPS No.1851 of 2001 as well as para 2 of the award dated 08.09.2015 makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 01.12.1990 and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 08.01.1992. 8. The petitioner has placed an order of regularization along with an application for taking the document on record. 9. The respondent No.1 has not disputed said document. 10. As the petitioner was a regular employee, respondent No.1 was under an obligation to take a decision with regard to termination of services of the petitioner after holding an inquiry and affording him due opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1947. 11.The finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner was a temporary employee appears to be erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the 5 award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 08.09.2015 is hereby set aside. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondent No.1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 12. The petitioner has nowhere pleaded that he was gainfully not employed anywhere during that period or he was willing to work with the respondent during that period, therefore, in opinion of this Court, he is not entitled for full back wages. But looking to length of service and the manner in which petitioner was removed from services, he shall be entitled for 30% back wages. 13.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha