Ranjana Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (L) No. 172 of 2017 partly allowing the writ petition filed by the State / petitioners whereby the learned Single Judge modified the Award dated 05.05.2017 (pronounced on 06.06.2017) passed in Case No.9/I.D.Act/Ref./2013 by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘I.D. Act’), Bilaspur, in which, the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the workers / employees holding that the discontinuance of services of ten workers / employees was unjustified and illegal and has thus ordered for reinstatement in services with 20% of back wages.

In the appeal, respondents No. 5 to 13 are the other workers / employees, who were respondents in WPL No. 172 of 2017. The appellant was also worker, who was respondent in WPL No. 172 of 2017.

Registry has pointed out that there is default in this appeal as the petitioner has under-lined certain paragraphs and had also used different sizes of font as well as making the same bold at some portion.

Mr. Soni submits that this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in WA No. 08 of 2022. He submits that he will not, in future, commit the mistakes committed which have been pointed out as default by the Registry, and therefore, the defaults may be waived in the present case. He has also fairly submitted that there is delay of 95 days in preferring the connected appeal for which an application for condonation of delay, being I.A. No. 01 of 2022, is filed.

Mr. Pali agrees that this appeal is covered by judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in WA No. 08 of 2022. He further submits that the said order was followed in WA No. 01 of 2022 and WA No. 125 of 2022. Accordingly, he submits that out of ten respondents in WPL No. 172 of 2017, nine respondents had already approached the writ appellate Court. He submits that he has no objection for condonation of delay of 95 days in preferring the connected appeal. It is also submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances notices need not be issued to respondents No.5 to 13.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we condone the defects pointed out by the Registry in the present case.

Since Mr. Pali has no objection to grant of condonation of delay, we condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2022 stands disposed of.

By an order dated 20.09.2021, the learned Single Judge, partly allowing the writ petition, directed that the workers / employees would be entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- for each year of service that they have rendered with the State Government, i.e. for 5 years, and therefore, they would be entitled to a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement of the claim.

Paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 30.06.2022, is reproduced as follows:

“30. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored / affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.”

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, in terms of the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed in WA No.8 of 2022, this appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored / affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.