1 2026:CGHC:15902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 186 of 2015 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bemetara, Durg Chhattisgarh Now District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bisahu Netam S/o Kartik Ram Netam, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sodh, Tahsil And P. S. Berla District Durg Chhattisgarh Now District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Judge, Under I. D. Act, Labour Court, Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s/ State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, G.A. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07 .04.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioners/ State have challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No.34/I.D.Act/2009/ Reference dated 9.2.2015, whereby the order of termination of services was set aside and respondent No.1 was reinstated in service without payment of back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would fairly submit that the services of respondent No.1 have been regularized vide order dated 16.6.2021 and he has placed that order alongwith the reply. He would contend that the award passed by the learned Labour Court has already been complied with. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ State would oppose. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 9.2.2015, the services of respondent No.1 have been regularized vide order dated 16.6.2021, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi