1 CGHC010071462010 2026:CGHC:29081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 2732 of 2010 • B.R. Dhekwar, Son of Shri Dharam Ji Dhekwar, aged 48 years, R/o Naya Amapara, Durg, At present working as a casual labour, in the office of General Manager, Telecom, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Through The Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Corporate Office Personal-IT, Section, 102-B, Stateman House, 148, Barakhamba Road, New (C.G.) 2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Chhattisgarh Telecom Circle, Khamardih, Raipur (C.G.) 3. General Manager, Telecom District Durg (C.G.) 4. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, Through : Presiding Officer, Nagpur (Maharashtra) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.1-3 : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 2 (i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quashed the order dated 14-02-2007 (Annexure P-16). (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased the regularized the petitioner service in view of the written statement and the case of other employees similarly. (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call /directed to respondent to produce entire record related to the petitioner case. (iv) That in alternative the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to directed to department to petitioner case in view of the written statement filed before the CGIT, and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court to shorten the litigation since the petitioner is suffering from 1990. (v) That, the Hon'be Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all the benefit to petitioner from the date of which the juniors of the petitioner have been granted. (vi) If, any relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed as Casual Labour under respondent No. 3 vide order dated 13.1.1986 but his services were discontinued in September, 1990. Thereafter, petitioner moved application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and during pendency of the case, he was reinstated in service on 24.1.1993 therefore the case was disposed. Thereafter, services of petitioner were again discontinued on 11.11.1995. Petitioner approached Central 3 Government Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and vide its judgment dated 28.5.1995, certain directions regarding re-instatement were given to the respondents. Petitioner again approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the appropriate Government referred the matter to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur where the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.5.2000 since both parties were absent. Subsequently, petitioner preferred review petition under Rule 28 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 [hereinafter to referred as ‘Rules of 1957’] and same was rejected vide order dated 14.2.2007. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though review petition under Rule 28 of Rules of 1957 was not maintainable but learned Tribunal should have entertained the same treating it an application under Rule 10(B)(9) of Rules of 1957. He further submits that petitioner may be permitted to move appropriate application seeking restoration of order dated 10.5.2022. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that as the petitioner-workman did not appear before the learned Tribunal on consecutive dates i.e. 26.4.2000 and 10.5.2000, learned Tribunal proceeded with dismissing the reference for want of prosecution. He further submits that review petition filed under Rule 28 of Rules of 1957 was not maintainable 4 as following the dismissal of the reference and the subsequent publication of the award, the learned Labor Court has become functus officio and lacks the jurisdiction to alter, review, or modify its own order. He also submits that petitioner should have moved an application for restoration of reference before the learned Tribunal and this petition being misconceived is liable to dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6) It appears that reference was dismissed by learned Tribunal on 10.5.2000 as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner approached the concerned Tribunal by filing review petition under Rule 28 of Rules of 1957 seeking review of the order dated 10.5.2000. 7) Admittedly, the reference has not been decided on merits, rather it has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.5.2000. Subsequently, petitioner on wrong premises moved application for review of the said order and the same was dismissed vide order impugned dated 14.2.2007. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to approach the concerned Tribunal seeking restoration of order dated 10.5.2000 within period of three weeks from today. If such an application is moved, learned Tribunal shall decide it in 5 accordance with the law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. 9) Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.14 14:40:16 +0530