Jeet Ram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1

CGHC010260442016 2026:CGHC:38771-DB
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
TIWARI
Date:
2026.09.03
10:27:10
+0530
NAFR
ANURADHA
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 172 of 2016
Jeet Ram Yadav S/o Murit Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill.
And Post Lakhali, Tah. Champa, P.S. Saragaon, Distt. Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Executive Engineer, Bango Canal
Division No. 6, Nandelibhatha, Shakti Distt. Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy
Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
02.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. S.P. Kale, learned counsel for the Appellant as well as
Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the State/respondent.

2
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-workman, Jeet Ram Yadav, assailing the order dated
04.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L)
No.6039 of 2010, whereby the writ petition preferred by the State
against the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court,
Bilaspur in Case No.48/I.D.A./09 (Reference) was disposed of.
The learned Single Judge, while affirming the finding of the
Labour Court that discontinuance/termination of the appellant was
illegal and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial
Disputes Act, interfered with the consequential relief of
reinstatement and, in lieu thereof, directed payment of
compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- for each completed year
of service.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman was
engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar under the respondent-
department with effect from 01.02.1989 and continued to
discharge his duties till 30.06.1996, when his services were
discontinued. Aggrieved by such discontinuance, an industrial
dispute came to be raised and the appropriate Government
referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, inter alia,
as to whether the dispute raised after a considerable lapse of time
was entertainable, whether termination of the appellant was legal
and proper and, if not, the relief to which he was entitled. Upon
consideration of the evidence adduced by both sides, the Labour
Court, by award dated 31.03.2010, held that termination of the

3
appellant was contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of the
Industrial Disputes Act and consequently directed his
reinstatement in service, though without back wages.
4. The aforesaid award was questioned by the State before the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.6039 of 2010. The learned
Single Judge noticed that the appellant had admittedly worked
from the year 1989 till 1996 and that his services had been
discontinued without compliance of the statutory requirements
under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, sustained the finding of the Labour Court insofar as the
illegality of termination was concerned. However, taking into
consideration that the appellant was a daily-wage employee, that
he was not shown to have been appointed against any sanctioned
vacant post and that a substantial period had elapsed since his
discontinuance, the relief of reinstatement was substituted by
monetary compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- for each
completed year of service.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that during
the pendency of the present appeal, a material subsequent
development has taken place, inasmuch as the services of the
appellant have already been regularized by the respondent-
authorities vide order dated 12.11.2021. It is submitted that the
very basis on which the learned Single Judge considered
reinstatement to be inappropriate, namely, the appellant being

4
merely a daily-wage employee without any substantive status in
service, no longer survives in view of the subsequent
regularization granted by the employer itself. The respondent-
authorities, having subsequently regularized the services of the
appellant, have themselves recognized his continuation in service
and, therefore, the consequential relief granted by the Labour
Court does not now warrant interference. He further submits that
the Labour Court had arrived at a categorical finding, on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, that the
discontinuance of the appellant was illegal for non-compliance
with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Significantly, the Labour Court had not awarded any back wages
and had confined the relief only to reinstatement. It is contended
that the finding regarding illegality of termination was itself
affirmed by the learned Single Judge and has not been shown to
suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. In these
circumstances, particularly when the appellant subsequently
came to be regularized on 12.11.2021, no useful purpose would
now be served by substituting reinstatement with monetary
compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the award
dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court be restored and
upheld and the order of the learned Single Judge be modified to
that extent.
6. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents fairly
concurs with the factual submission that the services of the

5
appellant have subsequently been regularized vide order dated
12.11.2021. Learned State counsel does not dispute that the
appellant is presently continuing pursuant to the aforesaid
regularization and submits that the appeal may be considered in
the light of the said subsequent development and appropriate
orders may be passed by this Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the material available on record, including the award passed by
the Labour Court as well as the order dated 04.12.2015 passed
by the learned Single Judge.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant had worked under the
respondent-department from 01.02.1989 till 30.06.1996. The
Labour Court, upon consideration of the evidence brought before
it, recorded a categorical finding that discontinuance of the
appellant was not in conformity with the statutory requirements
contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act and,
consequently, held the termination to be illegal. The said finding
on the illegality of termination was not disturbed by the learned
Single Judge. Indeed, the learned Single Judge expressly
sustained the award to the extent it declared termination of the
appellant to be bad in law and interfered only with the nature of
consequential relief granted to the workman.
9. The principal reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge
in substituting the relief of reinstatement with monetary

6
compensation was that the appellant was a daily-wage employee,
was not shown to be working against a sanctioned vacant post
and had remained out of employment under the respondent-
department for a considerable period. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, applying the principles governing reinstatement of daily-
wage employees, considered monetary compensation to be more
appropriate in the circumstances then obtaining.
10. However, during the pendency of the present intra-Court appeal,
the factual position has materially changed. It is an admitted
position before us that the respondent-authorities themselves
have regularized the services of the appellant by order dated
12.11.2021. The said subsequent development assumes
significance for adjudication of the present appeal. Once the
employer itself has regularized the appellant in service, the
apprehension that reinstatement would result in continuation of a
daily-wage employee without any substantive status loses much
of its significance. The subsequent regularization also
demonstrates that the appellant has, in fact, been brought within
the regular establishment by the respondent-authorities
themselves.
11. It is equally significant that the Labour Court did not grant back
wages to the appellant. The relief granted under the award was
limited to reinstatement, and the finding that the termination was
illegal has already attained affirmation before the learned Single

7
Judge. In such circumstances, restoration of the award of the
Labour Court would neither result in grant of any undue monetary
benefit for the intervening period nor place any unforeseen
financial burden upon the respondents by way of back wages. On
the contrary, in view of the subsequent regularization of the
appellant, restoration of the Labour Court's award would bring the
adjudication in consonance with the factual position which has
ultimately emerged between the parties.
12. The jurisdiction exercised in an intra-Court appeal necessarily
permits this Court to take notice of material subsequent
developments which have a direct bearing upon the relief to be
moulded between the parties. Courts are not required to shut their
eyes to subsequent events which render the original basis for
moulding a particular relief substantially altered. In the present
case, the subsequent regularization of the appellant on
12.11.2021 is not an extraneous circumstance but goes directly to
the question whether the relief of reinstatement granted by the
Labour Court ought to have been substituted by monetary
compensation.
13. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and considering
that the finding of illegal termination recorded by the Labour Court
was itself affirmed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the
considered opinion that the award dated 31.03.2010 passed by
the Labour Court, Bilaspur does not call for interference. The

8
direction of the learned Single Judge substituting the relief of
reinstatement by monetary compensation at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- for each completed year of service, in the peculiar
facts now obtaining, is therefore liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The
order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(L) No.6039 of 2010 is modified and the award dated
31.03.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case
No.48/I.D.A./09 (Reference), directing reinstatement of the
appellant without back wages, is upheld. However, since the
appellant has already been regularized in service vide order dated
12.11.2021, no further direction for physical reinstatement is
required to be issued. The rights and consequential service
benefits of the appellant, if any, shall be regulated in accordance
with the award of the Labour Court, the order of regularization
dated 12.11.2021 and the applicable service rules.
15. It is clarified that the present order shall not be construed as
granting back wages for any period for which the Labour Court
itself had declined such relief.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeal
stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha )
Judge Chief Justice
Anu