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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 3923

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors – Respondent
WPL/55/2013



Digitally signed 2025:CGHC:16871 by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:

2025.04.16

16:53:28 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 55 of 2013  Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty Mantralay Naya Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

with WPL No. 56 of 2013  Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty Mantralay Naya Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

with WPL No. 57 of 2013  Sanjay Agrawal S/o Parmeshwar Das Agrawal Occ. M/s Shyam Ispat India Private Ltd., Vill Taraimal, S Punjipathra, Distt Raigarh,c G, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ths Secretary, Deptt Of Industries Health And Safty, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur,c G, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Asstt Director Indusial Health And Safty, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, Cg, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suman Keshari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

11 . 04.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 02/CGIR Act/IV/2012, 04/CGIR Act/IV/2012, and 06/CGIR Act/IV/2012 dated 23.03.2013, whereby, the appeals preferred by the State/respondents were allowed and the amount of penalty was enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- to

1,00,000/- in each case.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a company styled as M/s Shyam Ispat (India) Private Limited. The In-charge, Deputy Director, Industrial Health & Safety and Factory Inspector, Raigarh filed complaint cases before the learned Labour Court against the violation of certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short “Act, 1948”). The allegations against the petitioner were that due to contravention of the safety measures, Prem Lal Tirkey, and Ashok Tandon died on 20.10.2011, 16.11.2011 respectively.

3. The learned Labour Court passed separate orders on 28.02.2018 and imposed the penalty of Rs. 8,000/- according to the provisions of Section

92 of the Act, 1948 in each case against the petitioner.

4. The respondents/State preferred appeals against the orders passed in the above-stated cases before the learned Industrial Court. The Industrial Court according to the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, 1948 enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- in each case. The petitioner has challenged the common order passed in three appeals dated

23.03.2013 by filing three separate writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned Industrial Court failed to assign sufficient reasons for enhancement of the penalty from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. He would further submit that in the absence of reasons, the orders passed by the learned Industrial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. He would pray to set-aside those orders.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Shail

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top