High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 06 CHH CK 0095

Naresh Lal Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 20 June 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 3480 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 344 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Grievance of the Petitioner perhaps seems to be more in the nature of non- granting of back-wages which was awarded to him by the Labour Court vide its order dated 2.4.1996 which stood affirmed by the Appellate Court's order dated 16.12.2004. Further grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not received the other retiral dues payable to him on his accepting voluntarily retirement from Respondent No.2-Corporation.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents have stated before this Court that the Petitioner has been paid the gratuity amount as per his entitlement as is reflected from Annexure P-3 so also the Petitioner has been granted ex-gratia payment all of which he has accepted without any objection.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for EPF department submitted that the Petitioner in addition has since also received the entire payment under the EPF Act and since he has withdrawn the entire amount from his EPF account he would not be entitled for pensionary benefits.

4.

As regards back-wages and consequential benefits as have been awarded by the Labour Court, learned Counsel appearing for CIDC Corporation submitted that the said two order of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were under challenge in W.P.(L) No. 2427 of 2007 and to the best of his knowledge the said writ petition stands remanded back to the Labour Court for adjudication on the issue of liability.

5.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the fact that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the Petitioner has been paid the gratuity, ex-gratia payment as also EPF amount, this court does not find any strong case made out by the Petitioner for issuance of a specific writ for any further payment to be made to the Petitioner except for the claim of his back-wages which he would be at liberty to seek for in an appropriate proceeding drawn in accordance with law.

6.

The writ petition in its present form stands disposed of accordingly.