Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3313 (CHH)

RAMSWARUP SINGH v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPS/3897/2025 · 2026-02-11

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:7918 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3897 of 2025 1 - Ramswarup Singh S/o Late Shivpujan Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o D.S. -48, Graud Nagar, P.O. Gevera Project Deepaka Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jairam Patel S/o Late Feku Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Post Sirajam, Gram- Sirajam, Sirjam Khas Deoria, U.P.- 274202 3 - Amol Kumar S/o Late Moti Lal Sonkar Aged About 60 Years R/o Deepka Jhawar, Deepak Korba, Chhattisgarh 495452 4 - Ashok Chaudhary S/o Late Jaldhari Chaudhary Aged About 56 Years R/o Subhash Nagar Ward-5, Deepaka, Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495452. 5 - Pradip Mahapatra S/o Late Banambar Mahapatra Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Nidhipur, P.O. Nidhipur, Distt- Khorda, Oddisha- 752020. 6 - Shobhnath Paw S/o Late Chablu Ram Paw Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Baihatola Paiha Tola, Paitola, Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh- 484440. 7 - Rameshwar Das S/o Late Subhan Dass Aged About 60 Years R/o 158, Deepka Baltikri Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495452 8 - Govind Singh Uike S/o Amar Singh Uike Aged About 58 Years R/o Litiyakhar, Tiwarti Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495452 9 - Nathulal Yadav S/o Prem Sai Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Litiyakhar, Tiwarta Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495449. 2 10 - Dilip Kumar Dubey S/o Ramnihora Dubey Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 15 Rattan Pur, Harwabhairav Baba Manir Bilaspur, Rattanpur (M.P.) P.O. Rattanpur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh- 495442 11 - Jagdish Ray S/o Nirodh Ray Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Saraisingar, P.O. Harde Bazar, Distt- Korba Chhattisgarh- 495446. 12 - Kuwar Singh Bisht S/o Jaswant Singh Bisht Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Vidham Nagar, Jhabar, Korba Chhattisgarh- 495452 13 - Bhukhan Ram Vishwakarma S/o Chaitram Vishkarma Aged About 72 Years R/o House No. 54, Talab Para, Rani Gaon, Lovsara, Janjgir, Champa, Chhattisgarh- 495689 14 - Shrikanram Prajapati S/o Sudershan Prajapati Aged About 62 Years R/o Shahid Bhagat Singh Jyoti Nagar, Deepika Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495452. 15 - Shankar Rao Navrang S/o Baliram Navrang Aged About 58 Years R/o Pole No. 28, Shirpur, Wardha, Maharashtra- 442201. 16 - Dhiraj Kumar Sonwani S/o Mela Ram Sonwani Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Pali Road, Jyoti Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495452. ... Petitioners Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Assistant Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund, Beside Sarkanda Police Station, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh- 495006 (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 12-06-2025 Party Substituted) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 12/02 /2026 3 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the Provident Fund to the petitioners and other workers along with interest in accordance with provisions of P.F. Act, 1952. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Provident Fund Commissioner as defined under Section 7 A of the Act, 1952 to initiate prosecution and other actions in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1952 against the Respondents/SECL. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner; and. 10.4 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents/SECL awarded contract to the contractors namely, M/s. Rohini Association Private Limted, M/s. Kaytin Transport Private Limited and Ex – Military Enterprises Private Limited for transportation of coal from the point of production to the dispatch of coal at the Railway sidings. He contended that the Respondent/SECL has also provided motor vehicle (Trippers) for the purpose of transportation of coal and the contractors employed Drivers, Khalasis’ and other workers for execution of the work awarded to them. Petitioners are employed by the contractors and according to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1973, petitioners were entitled for wages and other benefits. 3. Petitioners are entitled for coal mines provident fund, however till date, it has not been disbursed in faovur of the petitioners. It is also contended that the similarly situated persons have approached this Court by way of filing WP (S) No. 1918/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2025 permitting the petitioners therein to approach the concerned authorities to be considered and further direction to the Respondent No. 2 4 therein to consider their claim at the earliest within a period of 30 days and therefore, the same direction be issued in this case also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a relief for submission of representation before the Respondent No. 2 and direction to the Respondent No. 2 to consider and take decision on the representation, they are having no objection to the limited prayer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioners, without entering into the merits of the claim of petitioners, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit afresh representation before the Respondent No. 2 individually and if such a representation is submitted by the petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by the petitioners on its own merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of representations. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY