1 CGHC010260442016 2026:CGHC:38771-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 172 of 2016 Jeet Ram Yadav S/o Murit Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. And Post Lakhali, Tah. Champa, P.S. Saragaon, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Executive Engineer, Bango Canal Division No. 6, Nandelibhatha, Shakti Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.09.03 10:27:10 +0530 2 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-workman, Jeet Ram Yadav, assailing the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6039 of 2010, whereby the writ petition preferred by the State against the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.48/I.D.A./09 (Reference) was disposed of. The learned Single Judge, while affirming the finding of the Labour Court that discontinuance/termination of the appellant was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, interfered with the consequential relief of reinstatement and, in lieu thereof, directed payment of compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- for each completed year of service. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman was engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar under the respondent- department with effect from 01.02.1989 and continued to discharge his duties till 30.06.1996, when his services were discontinued. Aggrieved by such discontinuance, an industrial dispute came to be raised and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, inter alia, as to whether the dispute raised after a considerable lapse of time was entertainable, whether termination of the appellant was legal and proper and, if not, the relief to which he was entitled. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides, the Labour Court, by award dated 31.03.2010, held that termination of the 3 appellant was contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently directed his reinstatement in service, though without back wages. 4. The aforesaid award was questioned by the State before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6039 of 2010. The learned Single Judge noticed that the appellant had admittedly worked from the year 1989 till 1996 and that his services had been discontinued without compliance of the statutory requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge, therefore, sustained the finding of the Labour Court insofar as the illegality of termination was concerned. However, taking into consideration that the appellant was a daily-wage employee, that he was not shown to have been appointed against any sanctioned vacant post and that a substantial period had elapsed since his discontinuance, the relief of reinstatement was substituted by monetary compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for each completed year of service. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, a material subsequent development has taken place, inasmuch as the services of the appellant have already been regularized by the respondent- authorities vide order dated 12.11.2021. It is submitted that the very basis on which the learned Single Judge considered reinstatement to be inappropriate, namely, the appellant being 4 merely a daily-wage employee without any substantive status in service, no longer survives in view of the subsequent regularization granted by the employer itself. The respondent- authorities, having subsequently regularized the services of the appellant, have themselves recognized his continuation in service and, therefore, the consequential relief granted by the Labour Court does not now warrant interference. He further submits that the Labour Court had arrived at a categorical finding, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, that the discontinuance of the appellant was illegal for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Significantly, the Labour Court had not awarded any back wages and had confined the relief only to reinstatement. It is contended that the finding regarding illegality of termination was itself affirmed by the learned Single Judge and has not been shown to suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. In these circumstances, particularly when the appellant subsequently came to be regularized on 12.11.2021, no useful purpose would now be served by substituting reinstatement with monetary compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court be restored and upheld and the order of the learned Single Judge be modified to that extent. 6. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concurs with the factual submission that the services of the 5 appellant have subsequently been regularized vide order dated 12.11.2021. Learned State counsel does not dispute that the appellant is presently continuing pursuant to the aforesaid regularization and submits that the appeal may be considered in the light of the said subsequent development and appropriate orders may be passed by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record, including the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant had worked under the respondent-department from 01.02.1989 till 30.06.1996. The Labour Court, upon consideration of the evidence brought before it, recorded a categorical finding that discontinuance of the appellant was not in conformity with the statutory requirements contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act and, consequently, held the termination to be illegal. The said finding on the illegality of termination was not disturbed by the learned Single Judge. Indeed, the learned Single Judge expressly sustained the award to the extent it declared termination of the appellant to be bad in law and interfered only with the nature of consequential relief granted to the workman. 9. The principal reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge in substituting the relief of reinstatement with monetary 6 compensation was that the appellant was a daily-wage employee, was not shown to be working against a sanctioned vacant post and had remained out of employment under the respondent- department for a considerable period. The learned Single Judge, therefore, applying the principles governing reinstatement of daily- wage employees, considered monetary compensation to be more appropriate in the circumstances then obtaining. 10. However, during the pendency of the present intra-Court appeal, the factual position has materially changed. It is an admitted position before us that the respondent-authorities themselves have regularized the services of the appellant by order dated 12.11.2021. The said subsequent development assumes significance for adjudication of the present appeal. Once the employer itself has regularized the appellant in service, the apprehension that reinstatement would result in continuation of a daily-wage employee without any substantive status loses much of its significance. The subsequent regularization also demonstrates that the appellant has, in fact, been brought within the regular establishment by the respondent-authorities themselves. 11. It is equally significant that the Labour Court did not grant back wages to the appellant. The relief granted under the award was limited to reinstatement, and the finding that the termination was illegal has already attained affirmation before the learned Single 7 Judge. In such circumstances, restoration of the award of the Labour Court would neither result in grant of any undue monetary benefit for the intervening period nor place any unforeseen financial burden upon the respondents by way of back wages. On the contrary, in view of the subsequent regularization of the appellant, restoration of the Labour Court's award would bring the adjudication in consonance with the factual position which has ultimately emerged between the parties. 12. The jurisdiction exercised in an intra-Court appeal necessarily permits this Court to take notice of material subsequent developments which have a direct bearing upon the relief to be moulded between the parties. Courts are not required to shut their eyes to subsequent events which render the original basis for moulding a particular relief substantially altered. In the present case, the subsequent regularization of the appellant on 12.11.2021 is not an extraneous circumstance but goes directly to the question whether the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court ought to have been substituted by monetary compensation. 13. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and considering that the finding of illegal termination recorded by the Labour Court was itself affirmed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur does not call for interference. The 8 direction of the learned Single Judge substituting the relief of reinstatement by monetary compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for each completed year of service, in the peculiar facts now obtaining, is therefore liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6039 of 2010 is modified and the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.48/I.D.A./09 (Reference), directing reinstatement of the appellant without back wages, is upheld. However, since the appellant has already been regularized in service vide order dated 12.11.2021, no further direction for physical reinstatement is required to be issued. The rights and consequential service benefits of the appellant, if any, shall be regulated in accordance with the award of the Labour Court, the order of regularization dated 12.11.2021 and the applicable service rules. 15. It is clarified that the present order shall not be construed as granting back wages for any period for which the Labour Court itself had declined such relief. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu