Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30320 (CHH)

S. L. TRIVEDI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPL/83/2024 · 2026-07-29

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010061672024 2026:CGHC:32909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 83 of 2024 S. L. Trivedi S/o Rameshwar Dayal Trivedi Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. C/1, Sai Dham Torwa P S - Torva, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. Working As Research Office Quality And Control Branch Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Mandir Hasoud Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Khikh Bai W/o Late Ramesh Kumar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Kapan, Blok- Akaltara Tahsil- Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Bhuneshwari D/o Late Ramesh Kumar Aged About 16 Years Through Her Mother Smt. Khikh Bai, R/o Village- Kapan, Blok- Akaltara Tahsil- Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate along with Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3: Mr. Anil K. Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 47/EC Act/2018 (Fatal), whereby compensation of Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Rs. 5,35,815/- with interest at 12% per annum and penalty of Rs. 1,07,164/- has been awarded in favour of Respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under law. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim