Ram Kumar Kashyap @APPELLANT@Hash State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ.

Heard counsel for the Appellants and counsel for the Respondent-State authorities.

The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2016 who refused to pass an order giving any direction for

regularization primarily on the ground that it was a case of retrenchment and due compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 was paid. In addition to that, the learned Single Judge also refused to give any direction relegating some of the Appellants to the Industrial

Tribunal keeping in mind that most of them had reached the stage or age of superannuation.

Based on a policy decision taken by the State Government to remove all daily wagers who have been appointed after 31.12.1988, due scrutiny was

done. The appointment of these appellants having been found to have been made after the cut off date, the persons so engaged were retrenched, after

paying due compensation. Such decision was assailed before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, however subsequently, since the

State of Chhattisgarh abolished the State Tribunal, the matter travelled to the learned Single Judge.

Plea was taken before the learned Single Judge that similarly situated persons, atleast two of them had been regularized and there is no reason to

discriminate so far as the rest are concerned.

The question for regularization of these appellants was not gone into because there was no clear evidence that they had worked for more than 240

days in the preceding calender year and even otherwise since they were workmen, therefore, such issue could only be decided by an Industrial

Tribunal.

The findings of the learned Single Judge are in following terms :-

“7. It is not the case of the petitioners that the scrutiny was made in an illegal manner and the findings are perverse. Although some certificates

have been annexed to demonstrate that they were working prior of 31-12-1988, the respondents have categorically stated that the official records do

not contain proof of their working in the department prior to 31-12-1988. In such circumstances, this Court sitting under Article 226 would not embark

on an enquiry like the trial Court or the Labour Court because doing so would require leading of oral evidence also.

Petitioners have stated that some other candidates had gone to Labour Court where the industrial dispute raised by them has been answered in their

favour, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief. Finding recorded by the Labour Court after recording evidence in some other matter

would not bind this Court. It was for the petitioners to have raised the industrial dispute.

Ordinarily this Court would have relegated the petitioners to raise the industrial dispute, however, considering the fact the petition has remained

pending for the last 16 years and most of the petitioners are aged about 49-50 years; as a matter of fact at present, the petitioner No.5 Shyam Kumar

(Karan), petitioner No.7 Birjhuram Yadav and the petitioner No.9 Basant Ram are more than 60 years of age and some more like the petitioner No.6

Amrika Prasad Sahu and petitioner No.8 Ram Prasad are presently aged about 57 years of age, it may not be appropriate at this stage to relegate

them to approach the Labour Court. While concluding so, this Court is also impressed by the statement made in the termination order wherein the

retrenchment compensation has been paid to each of the petitioner. Once retrenchment compensation is paid, even if the petitioners have worked

continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding calender year immediately prior to the removal, it may not be termed as illegal retrenchment.â€​

Though there is a bald denial that these appellants were appointed after 31.12.1988 or that retrenchment compensation was not given to them. Such

bald denial in the face of clear findings having been recorded by the learned Single Judge, cannot be accepted to reflect the true position.

Even otherwise, since these appellants had rightly been paid retrenchment compensation and since most of them are in the evening of their life, no

purpose would be served by giving a direction for their regularization, when many of them have already reached the age of superannuation and had

not been in the employment of the State in any manner for the last 18 years.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed..