1 CGHC010170662023 2026:CGHC:37386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 100 of 2023 Commissioner Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Narrottam Yadav S/o Shri Mohan Yadav Labourer, Public Works Department, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, R/o Village Chataud, Post Chataud, Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Santu Ram Patel S/o Pusau Ram Patel Labourer, Public Works Department, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, R/o Kostapara Ward, Near Nandi Chowk, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3 - Janak S/o Shri Baldev Yadav Labourer, Public Works Department, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, R/o Village Potiyadeeh, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 4 - Girdhar Ram Sahu S/o Ram Bharosa Labourer, Public Works Department, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, R/o Village Shyamtarai, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.). 5 - Smt. Lata Bai Soni W/o Late Shiv Kumar Soni Labourer, Public Works Department, R/o Gokulpur Ward, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shurbhi Yadav, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Diwaker, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order (Annexure P/1) of the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh at Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 4/P.W. Act/B-II/2022 Commissioner Municipal Corporation Dhamtari Vs. Narottam Yadav & others dated 21.03.2023 also set aside the impugned order (Annexure P/4) of the Court authority under wages act, Labour Court Dhamtari dated 02.02.2022. Because, they are bad, perverse, erroneous against the actual facts and law. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly call all the records of the Courts below. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondents-workmen moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the learned Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act. They pleaded that they had been working as unskilled labourers since year 2000 and were not being paid wages according to the Collector rates. It was also pleaded that they were being paid wages at rates lower than the prescribed minimum wages. The learned Labour Court issued notice to the petitioner and, after affording opportunity of hearing, framed issues. The parties led evidence and thereafter the application moved by the workmen was partly allowed vide award dated 02.02.2022, whereby the petitioner was directed to make payment of 61,632/- ₹ along with compensation of 25,000/- each to all the workmen. ₹ 3. Being aggrieved by the award dated 02.02.2022, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Industrial Court and vide order dated 21.03.2023, the appeal was dismissed. Against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 4. Ms. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the workmen were being paid admissible wages and their claims were not based on any agreement entered into between the parties. She would 3 further submit that the workmen failed to prove that they were being paid wages at lower rates; thus, the petition may be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Industrial Court may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- workmen would support the Award & order passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Court, respectively, and pray that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard. 7. The record would show that the workmen were paid wages below the admissible rates during the periods: 01.10.2010 to 01.04.2011; 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2011; 01.10.2011 to 31.03.2012; 01.04.2012 to 30.09.2012; 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013; 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013, & 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014. Accordingly, each of the workmen claimed an amount of 61,632/-. ₹ 8. The workmen produced sufficient documentary and oral evidence to establish their claim. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, allowed the claim of the respondents and also awarded compensation of 25,000/- each. The findings recorded by the ₹ learned Labour Court were affirmed by the learned Industrial Court. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim