Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.20 17:57:23 +0530

2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(L) No. 59 of 2014 Samaylal Sahu, S/o Shri Sriram Sahu, aged about 53 Years, R/o Late Basti Qtr 226, Vidya Nivas Jamnipali, Thana Darri, Korba Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus The Deputy General Manager State Bank Of India S/o State Bank Of India Zonal Officer Shankar Nagar Raipur C.G.

Respondent For Petitioner : Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate.

For Respondent/S.B.I. : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

18/02/2026

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an award dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short “CGIT”) in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2002 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was rejected and the reference made by the Central Government as which is mentioned herein below :-

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of In Raipur/Korba in terminating the services of Shri Samaylal Sahu, Messenger w.e.f. 15-12-1997 instead of regularizing his service justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

was held to be proper and legal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a messenger with the respondents and he was orally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. (for short “ID Act”). No inquiry was conducted neither any show-cause notice was given to the petitioner before his termination. Thus, conciliation proceedings was carried out before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central (for short ALC) which discharging power under section 10 of the ID Act sent the above stated reference to the learned CGIT. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the learned CGIT and also engaged a Counsel. The CGIT is situated at Jabalpur and sometime used to have a Camp Court at Bilaspur. The petitioner being Class-IV employee, on every occasion was not available at CGIT Jabalpur, made an application to carry the proceedings of the said case at Camp Court, Bilaspur. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned CGIT on 18.11.2009, however, the said order was not communicated to the petitioner. As the petitioner had engaged a Counsel and was under impression that this case would be looked after by the Counsel and his presence on every date before the CGIT may not be necessary. Apart from this, he was under impression the proceedings would be carried out at Camp Court of CGIT at Bilaspur. As on couple of occasions, the petitioner could not appear before the learned CGIT Jabalpur and could not examined his witnesses in support of his claim, the learned CGIT has dismissed the statement of claim holding the reference sent by the ALC Central as proper and legal. He further submits that now at present the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, however his statement of claim has not been adjudicated upon by the learned CGIT on merits. At the most, the petitioner may get some monetary compensation instead of reinstatement in case an opportunity is given to him to contest his case before the CGIT on a remand being made by this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the submission that the petitioner is a Class IV employee, thus unable to contest his case at Jabalpur is misconceived. Every litigant must be conscious enough to prosecute his litigation. In case in hand, the petitioner had engaged a Counsel and it was also the duty of the petitioner to be aware the proceedings of his case before the CGIT. From the order-sheet, it is quite apparent that the petitioner on so many occasion failed to appear before the CGIT and had been casual in prosecuting his case before the CGIT. Hence, there is no merit in this writ