1 CGHC010142852019 2026:CGHC:31642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 108 of 2019 1 - Shyamlal Verma S/o Late Shri Parsuram Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Rawan, Post Office Arjuni, Sorrounding Area Ambuja Cement Ltd. Tehsil Baloda Bazar, In The Revenue And Civil District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Industries , Sachivalaya, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Presiding Officer Labour Court, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The General Manager, Ambuja Cement Ltd . Cement Factory Situate At Rawan, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, Revenue And Civil District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Saluja, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For respective respondents : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 (learned Labour Court) to consider the claim of the petitioner and condoned the delay of the 28 years as per the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 6328/2017 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1983 by the then State of Madhya Pradesh for development of an Industrial Area and, later on, Modi Cement Company was established, which was subsequently taken over by Ambuja Cement Ltd. The petitioner was granted employment as a workman in the year 1986 under the Rehabilitation Policy. He met with an accident in the year 1987 during the course of his employment. The services of the petitioner were discontinued and, thereafter, he was never paid wages or provided medical facilities. It is also pleaded that the petitioner suffered disability on account of the said accident. WPS No. 6328 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2017, wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Collector and the Labour Court. The petitioner approached the learned Labour Court claiming reinstatement and back wages by filing a statement of claim on 22.09.2018. The learned Labour Court, vide order dated 26.10.2018, dismissed the statement of claim on the ground that it was preferred after 28 years from the date of his discontinuation from service. The petitioner has 3 challenged said order by filing this petition. 4. Mr. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was an employee working under Ambuja Cement Company. He would contend that he was appointed in lieu of land acquisition and thus, he was a regular employee of the Cement Company. It is also argued that the services of the petitioner were discontinued in the year 1987 without assigning sufficient reasons and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"). He would submit that the petitioner made various representations before the authorities and also filed a writ petition before this Court. He would further submit that the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the District Collector and Labour Court, and thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned Labour Court by filing a statement of claim. He would contend that the learned Labour Court rejected the statement of claim filed by the petitioner only on the ground of delay. He would further contend that the learned Labour Court ought to have decided the matter on merits after recording the evidence of the parties. He would pray to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that as alleged in the writ petition, services of the petitioner were discontinued way back in the year 1987, and the petitioner kept mum till 2017. They would further submit that, in the year 2017, -4- WPS No. 6328 of 2017 was filed, which was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the District Collector. They would contend that the petitioner filed the statement of claim before the concerned Labour Court after 28 years, contrary to the provisions of Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947. They would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a workman under Ambuja Cement Company in the year 1986, and he met with an accident. As alleged, his services were discontinued in the year 1987. Since 1987 till 2017, the petitioner remained in a state of slumber and, thereafter, filed WPS No.6328 of 2017, wherein liberty was granted to him to approach the District Collector and the Labour Court. The petitioner filed a statement of claim before the concerned Labour Court on 22.09.2018. The learned Labour Court rejected the statement of claim on the ground that it was preferred after 28 years from the date of discontinuation of service. Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947, which was inserted by way of amendment on 15.09.2010, provides that an application or statement of claim can be made before the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or otherwise termination of service. Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947 reads as under : “S.2A(3) The application referred to in sub- section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or 5 Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1). 8. It is not a case where the petitioner approached the concerned Labour Court within a period of three years from the date of insertion of Section 2A(3) of the Act of 1947. 9. Having considered the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court and the facts of the present case, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha