1 CGHC010263502021 2026:CGHC:33077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 62 of 2021 1- Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel), Head Office Village Janjha, Sector- 24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1- Sanjay Washnik S/o Manrakhan Washnik, R/o Barka Para, Ward No.25, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 67 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel) Head Office, Village Janjha, Sector-24 Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Sukhnandan Yadav S/o Kheduram Yadav R/o Takapara, Block Quarter, Ward No. 13, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent WPL No. 69 of 2021 1- Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 39 Years, Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel) Head Office Village Janjha, Sector - 24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Surendra Tiwari S/o Makhan Lal Tiwari, R/o Tethwar Para, Ward No.32, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 68 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel) Head Office, Village Janjha, Sector-24 Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus Nakul Kashyap S/o Bisoha Singh R/o Barkapara, Ward No. 25, Opp. Agrasen Bhawan, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 66 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel), Head Office Village Janjha, Sector- 24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus Abdul Hamid Quereshi S/o Late Shri Karim Baksha R/o Tankapara, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPL No. 63 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel) Head Office, Village Janjha, Sector-24 Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Abhay Chouhan S/o Premlal Chouhan Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Branch Akaltara, Cci Road, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent WPL No. 64 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel), Head Office Village Janjha, Sector- 24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Suryakant Soni S/o Arabchand Soni, R/o Sonar Para, House No. 120, Ward No. 133, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent 4 WPL No. 65 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years, Posted And Working As Manager (Personnel), Head Office Village Janjha, Sector- 24, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Deendayal Sahu S/o Banwari Lal Sahu R/o Singhol, Post Singhol, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon on 07.06.2019, whereby the applications moved by the workmen under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act were partly allowed and the petitioner/employer was directed to make payment of back wages within a period of two weeks. 2. The Writ Petition (Labour) numbers, registration number of the cases before the learned Labour Court, and dates of orders given below :- Sl. No. PETITIONS CASE NUMBER Order date 1. WPL/62/2021 CIVIL CASE No.27/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 5 2. WPL/63/2021 CIVIL CASE No.28/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 3. WPL/64/2021 CIVIL CASE No.33/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 4. WPL/65/2021 CIVIL CASE No.30/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 5. WPL/66/2021 CIVIL CASE No.26/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 6. WPL/67/2021 CIVIL CASE No.36/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 7. WPL/68/2021 CIVIL CASE No.31/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 8. WPL/69/2021 CIVIL CASE No.29/ID Act/2012/Claim 07.06.2019 3. Facts in brief are that the workmen were engaged as daily-rated employees under the petitioner. Their services were discontinued in the year 1993. They approached the learned Labour Court and awards were passed in their favour on 28.07.2001, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner to reinstate them with 50% back wages. The said award was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP/1751/2001, but during the pendency of the said writ petition, the services of the workmen were regularized. An application was moved by the workmen before the High Court to the effect that since their services have already been regularized, the petition has become infructuous. The said application was allowed and WP/1751/2001 was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 15.11.2011; thereafter, the workmen moved applications under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act before the learned Labour Court claiming back wages 6 pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 28.07.2001, wherein the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner herein to make payment of back wages to the tune of Rs. 81,042/- to each of the workmen. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 28.07.2001 was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 1751 of 2001, wherein interim protection was granted vide order dated 30.01.2002. Subsequently, the services of the workmen were regularized; therefore, an application was moved by the workmen to the effect that the petition has rendered infructuous, and the said application was allowed. He would contend that figure of back wages was not assessed by the learned Labour Court in its award dated 28.07.2001, therefore, the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947 were not maintainable. He would contend that the applications were moved after expiry of the period of limitation. He further contend that no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947, but the workmen should have approached the learned Labour Court within a reasonable time. He would contend that the workmen wrongly moved an application in W.P. No. 1751 of 2001 for dismissal of the writ petition and after its dismissal, they moved applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947; thus, he would pray to allow these petitions. 7 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the learned Labour Court has rightly passed orders in favour of the workmen pursuant to the award dated 28.07.2001. He would further submit that no objection was raised by the petitioner when the application for dismissal of W.P. No. 1751 of 2001 was moved and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such a plea. He would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. Admittedly, the respondents were engaged by the petitioner and subsequently, their services were discontinued in the year 1993 and thereafter, they approached the learned Labour Court under the provisions of the I.D. Act. The learned Labour Court passed an award in favour of the workmen on 28.07.2001 and passed order of reinstatement a with 50% back wages. The said award was the subject matter of W.P. No. 1751 of 2001, but during the pendency of the said petition, the services of the workmen were regularized; therefore, an application was moved for dismissal of the said petition. It is not in dispute that no objection was raised by the petitioner herein when the said application was considered, consequently petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2011. 8 8. Section 33-C of the I.D. Act, 1947 deals with recovery of money due from an employer and the same is reproduced as under: “[33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.--(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of 3[Chapter VA or Chapter VB], the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; 4[within a period not exceeding three months:] 4[Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.]” 9. Bare reading of the above quoted provisions would make it clear that a workman can recover money due from an employer under an award, settlement, or the relevant statutory provisions by applying to the 9 appropriate Government, while disputes regarding the computation of such money or benefits may be decided by the Labour Court. 10. In the present case, the award was passed in favour of the workmen by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 28.07.2001, wherein 50% back wages was granted. The petitioner, assailed the said order, but writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2011 and thus, the said award attained finality. 11.It is provided in Section 33 (C) of the Act of 1947 that such an application should be made within a period of one year from the date on which the money became due, but it is further provided that such an application may be entertained after expiry of the said period if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. 12.In the present case, the award was passed on 28.07.2001 and thereafter, it was challenged before the High Court by filing W.P. No. 1751 of 2001. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, which continued till dismissal of the writ petition, i.e. 15.11.2011, therefore, there was no occasion for the workmen to approach the learned Labour Court prior to 15.11.2011. 13.Perusal of the order(s) impugned would make it clear that the workmen moved separate applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947 on 12.03.2012 before the learned Labour Court after 10 dismissal of WP/1751/2001; thus, the objection made by Mr. Panda with regard to limitation cannot be accepted. 14.Having considered the facts discussed above and the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. 15.Accordingly, these petitions are hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim