1 CGHC010326572025 2026:CGHC:29793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 168 of 2025 1 - Balanna S/o Naganna, Aged About 80 Years Attendant, P.No. 820481, Department-Nandani Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Address- Deputy General Secretary, Bhilai Steel Plant Employee Union Office - Quarter No. 2/ C Road No. 13, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Labour Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 173 of 2025 1 - A. Yohan S/o Chenaya, Aged About 85 Years (Retired Employee) Technician Pipe Fitter P.No. 74972, Department Civil Industrial Area Nandani Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Address- Deputy General Secretary, Bhilai Steel Plant Employee Union Office- Quarter No. 2/c Road No. 13, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Labour Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 175 of 2025 2 1 - N. Chinnaiyya Son Of Malkondiya, Aged About 76 Years (Retired Employee) Post-Senior Operator, P. No. 072880 Token No. 07007, Department Nandani Minies, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Address-C/o Deputy General Secretary, Bhilai Steel Plant Employee Union Office - Quarter No. 2/c Road No. 13, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District-Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 2 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Labour Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 172 of 2025 1 - Smt. C. Mariyamma W/o Subaiya Aged About 83 Years (Retired Employee) Sweeper, P. No. 56446, Department Nandani Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Address C/o Deputy General Secretary, Bhilai Steel Plant Employee Union Office - Quarter No. 2/c Road No. 13, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Labour Court Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.7.2026 1. Petitioners have filed these petitions assailing the orders passed by learned Labour Court, Durg dated 27.3.2025 in respective 3 cases whereby applications filed by the petitioners under Section 33 (C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been rejected. 2. Facts of present cases are that petitioners, who were employees of respondents No. 1 and 2 retired from services on account of attaining the age of superannuation between years 2002 to 2007. In year 1999, petitioners applied for house building allowance and received the amounts but they never started construction therefore according to the agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent-employer, they were required to refund the amounts along with interest @ 18% per annum. Respondent No. 1 recovered the amounts with interest component from the petitioners prior to their retirement. Petitioners approached the concerned Labour Court seeking refund of recovered amounts in year 2017. A chart setting out the particulars of the petitioners is reproduced below :- Name of Petitioner Case No. House Building Allowance Balanna (WPL/168/2025) Case No. 5/ID Act/2018/ Civil Rs. 1,10,000/- Smt. C. Mariyamma (WPL/172/2025) Case No. 3/ID Act/2018/Civil Rs. 50,000/- A. Yohan (WPL/173/2025) Case No. 6/ID Act/2018 /Civil Rs. 1,28,000/- N. Chinnaiyya (WPL/175/2025) Case No. 4/ID Act/2018/ Civil Rs. 1,46,000/- 3. Petitioners took a plea that respondent No. 1 imposed compound interest @ 18% and recovered Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs from the petitioners in contravention to the circulars issued by the Steel 4 Authority of India Limited from time to time. Respondent- employer filed reply, denied averments made in applications moved by petitioners and pleaded that applications were barred by limitation. Petitioners filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC but failed to appear in the witness box and prove the contents of their applications. Respondent-employer also did not adduce evidence. 4. Learned labour Court rejected the applications moved by the petitioners on following grounds :- (a)Petitioners failed to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their cases. (b)Petitioners though took the house building allowance from the respondent-employer but failed to construct their respective houses using it. (c)Petitioners moved applications before the Labour Court after expiry of limitation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Labour Court erred in law in rejecting the applications moved by the petitioners on the ground of delay. He prays to allow these petitions. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- employer submits that petitioners moved applications beyond the prescribed period of limitation therefore learned Labour Court rightly rejected them on the ground of delay and these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. Perusal of the records would show that though applications were moved by the petitioners for refund of the recovered amounts but petitioners failed to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. According to Section 33 (C)(2) of Act of 1947, prescribed period of limitation is one year whereas applications were moved by the petitioners after more than ten years without explaining sufficient cause for such huge delay. Learned Labour Court examined the dispute at length and thereafter dismissed the applications on the afore-stated grounds. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.15 17:53:18 +0530