CGHC010176932014 2026:CGHC:42224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 228 of 2014 President / Secretary Managing Trusty Shri Shaktipeeth Mahamaya Devi Mandir Trust, Ratanpur, Post Ratanpur, Tah Kota, Ps Ratanpur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Baisakhu Ram S/o Jeevan Lal R/o Vill Ratanpur, Tah Kota, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 279 of 2014 Baishakhu Ram S/o Lt Jeevan Lal Aged About 64 Years R/o Village , Ps And Post Ratanpur, Tah Kota, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shaktipith Mahamaya Devi Mandir Trust Ratanpur And Anr. S/o Through Its President/ Secretary, Managing Trust Post Ratanpur, Tah Kota, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Labour Court Bilaspur, Throuth Its Presiding Officer, Under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner in WPL No. 228/2014 & for respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Richa Patel & Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 in WPL No. 228/2014 & for the petitioner in WPL No. 279/2014 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.05 14:25:48 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28/09 /2026 1. Since the both the petitions arise out of same award passed by the Judge under Industrial Dispute Act- cum- Labour Court, Bilaspur, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For sake of convenience, WPL No. 279/2014 is taken as lead case. 2. In WPL No. 279/2014, the petitioner/workman has filed this Writ Petition (L) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 42/ID Act/2001 Ref. [(Baisakhu Ram Vs. President/Secretary (Managing Turstee)] by which the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner claiming reinstatement with full backwages assailing the award of granting Rs. one lac to him as compensation. 3. In WPL No. 228/2014, the petitioner/Trust has filed this Writ Petition (L) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 42/ID Act/2001 Ref. [(Baisakhu Ram Vs. President/Secretary (Managing Trustee)] by which the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. one lac to the workman in lieu of reinstatement as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPL No. 279/2014 would submit that the petitioner was in service of Shri Shaktipeeth Mahamaya Devi Mandir Trust, Ratanpur (for short “the Trust”) and his services were terminated in the year 2011. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, which is wholly inadequate, particularly having regard to the age of the petitioner, his length of service and his last drawn salary of Rs.7,050/- per month. The petitioner is presently aged about 78 years and is dependent upon the compensation for his livelihood. It is, therefore, prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced in view of the fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 1/Trust opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is just, proper and in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. He would further submit that the prayer for enhancement of compensation may not be entertained at this stage. However, during the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the Trust is willing to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, inclusive of gratuity and other benefits, if any, otherwise payable under the applicable laws. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that having regard to the age of the petitioner and the circumstances of the case, the compensation deserves to be enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. From the material available on record, it is quit vivid that the petitioner was engaged by the Trust in the year 1994 and his services came to be terminated in the year 2011. As such considering the fact that the petitioner is now about 78 years of age, rendered several years of service with the Trust and his last drawn salary was Rs.7,050/- per month, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court appears to be inadequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as such the compensation as awarded by the Labour Court needs to be enhanced. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Trust, on instructions, has voluntarily offered to enhance the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, inclusive of gratuity and other benefits, if any, otherwise payable to the petitioner under the applicable labour laws whereas learned counsel for the workman would pray for enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-. 10. Considering the age of the petitioner, the period of service rendered by him, his last drawn salary and, more particularly, the proposal made by the Trust during the course of hearing, this Court considers it appropriate to accept the proposal of the Trust. 11. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 20.03.2014 is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be inclusive of gratuity and such other benefits, if any, to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled under the applicable laws. The Trust shall pay the aforesaid amount to the workman within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the outstanding amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the expiry of the said period until its actual payment. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the respondent/Trust falls within the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said question is left open to be determined by the competent forum, at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge - Arun