1 2026:CGHC:13844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 118 of 2015 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Assistant Commissioner, Office Of The Collector Tribal Development Raigarh, Tehsil, Revenue And Civil District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Padum Singh Rathiya S/o Shri Lagan Sai Rathiya, Aged About 26 Years Ex. Peon, R/o Village Dhaskamuda, Post Maharajganj, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, P. S. Dharamjaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below relating to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the impugned award dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Labour Judge under I.D. Act, Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Case No. 11/I.D.Act/2014/Reference (Annexure P/1) is illegal and bad in law. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.01 11:42:35 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and quash/set-aside the award dated 11.05.2015 passed by the learned Labour Judge under I.D. Act, Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Case No. 11/I.D.Act/2014/Reference (Annexure P/1). 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and petition, may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. The respondent/workman was engaged as a daily wage employee as peon, in the Tribal Development Department. His services were discontinued without issuance of show cause notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, as required under law. Aggrieved by such termination, the respondent raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court, the workman led evidence and established that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Labour Court held that the termination of the workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as neither retrenchment compensation nor notice was provided. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement without back wages. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement. He would further submit that compensation in lieu of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. He would also submit that as per the settled legal position, reinstatement is not automatic in cases of daily wage workers, particularly where the workman has worked for a short duration, and considerable time has elapsed since termination. 4. Heard. 5. The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and has already been decided by this Court in WPL No. 114 of 2015, in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramlal Rathiya and other connected matters, decided on 05.10.2015. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in the said case and other connected matters. 7. A copy of the order dated 05.10.2015, passed in the aforesaid case, shall be placed on record of the present writ petition and shall form part of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Vatti