SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Vijay Kumar Kharra S/o Late Shri Nathuram Kharra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondents
WPS No. 4881 of 2022, WPS No. 5680 of 2022
Decided on : 26-06-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil S. Pandey and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Upasana Mehta, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Ms. Saloni Verma

Headnote:

Standing Orders Act - Employees' Dispute - Chhattisgarh Industrial Act, 1960 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioners, employees of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., were charged with misconduct and imposed with major punishment. They filed writ petitions assailing the orders before the court. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 applied to the petitioners as they were employees of a scheduled industry, and the Act provided a complete mechanism for resolving their grievances. The court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act. [ISSUES] The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petitions under the Labour Law. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that when a dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and a specific remedy is provided under the statute, the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. [FINAL DECISION] The court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable and disposed them off, directing the Labour Court to complete the trial within one year. [MAIN LEGAL POINT] The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the relevant statute, the High Court should not interfere unless a very strong case is made for making a departure. [CATEGORY] Civil Law [SUB-CATEGORY] Labour Law

ORDER :

1. As common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. On earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 disposed off both the petitions as the petitioners are employees of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and the petitioners have remedy of raising Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court constituted under Chhattisgarh Industrial Act, 1960 (in short ‘the Act of 1960’). Being aggrieved with these orders the respondents have preferred Writ Appeal No. 81/2023 and Writ Appeal No. 155/2023. The said Writ Appeals were allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench remanding back the matters for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents – Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the petitioner- Mohan Mohdikar in WPS No. 5680/2022 was working as Office Attendant Grade-I/Senior Accounts Officer with the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. He was charge-sheeted on 15.10.2015 on the count that work orders were issued to the contractors but work was not done by them and without inspection the payments were made to them thereby causing loss of Rs. 4,09,36.,163/- to the company and after holding departmental inquiry he was imposed with major punishment and his pension has been permanently withheld and stopped @ 40% vide its order dated 30.07.2021 against which he has preferred an appeal before the Deputy General Manager (Human Resources)-3 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Limited Company, Raipur who vide order dated 03.06.2022 has rejected the said appeal. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing both the orders before this Court.

3. The petitioner- Vijay Kumar Kharra in WPS No. 4881/2022 was working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of the Executive Engineer, Sakti Division. He was charge-sheeted on the count that the payments were made to two different contractors without inspection and without work completion certificate for same bills thereby caused loss of Rs. 38,68,940/to the company. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 27-9-2014. In pursuance of the charge sheet enquiry was conducted and punishment order dated 29-6-2021 was imposed upon the petitioner by which he has been reverted from the post of Assistant Grade -2 to Assistant Grade-3 and fixed lower pay four times below (corresponding lower) in metric S-5 of Assistant Grade -III and further directed that the suspension period shall not be included in duty period for any purpose. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors which was dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2022. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing both the orders before this Court.

4. Earlier, Writ Petition No. 4881 of 2022 was disposed off vide order dated 24.08.2022 and Writ Petition No. 5680 of 2022 was disposed off vide order dated 05.09.2022 directing the petitioners to file an application under Section 31(3) of the Industrial Relations Act before the Labour Court. Pursuant to the orders, the petitioners have approached the Labour Court where the proceedings have been initiated and protective order has been passed in favour of the petitioners. Said orders have not been challenged by the CSPDCL however, has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench. Hon’ble Division Bench set aside orders dated 24.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 and remanded back the matters for fresh consideration after noticing the respondents and the proceedings before the learned Labour Court were stayed till disposal of the present writ petitions. Hon’ble Division Bench also directed to dispose off the petitions within 8 months. This Court issued notice to the CSPDCL vide its order dated 31.08.2023 and pursuant to the notice CSPDCL filed its return in both the cases.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would subm

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top