Digitally s igned 2026:CGHC:12492 by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 202 6.03.25 AFR

11:15:29 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 189 of 2023 * - M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Having Office At Siltara Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus * - Ravi Kumar Sahu S/o Late Bhulauram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mandhar, P.O. Mandhar, Tehsil - Dharsiwa, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent And WPL No. 10 of 2024 * - M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Having Office At Siltara - Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus * - Vishnu Verma S/o Itwari Ram Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Raita, P.O. Manohara, Tahsil-Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioner/Management : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents/Workmen : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

16/03/2026

1. The petitioner has preferred these two petitions challenging the order(s) and award(s) passed by the learned Labour Court (ID Act), Raipur in Case No. 34/I.D. Act/2015 and Case No. 35/I.D. Act/2015 dated 01.11.2022, whereby the statement of claim filed by the workmen have been allowed and the employer has been directed to reinstate them in service within period of 45 days with 25% of back wages.

2. The facts, in brief, are that workman/respondent- Ravi Kumar Sahu (WPL No. 189/2023) was working with the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant since 21.12.2009 and workman/respondent- Vishnu Verma (WPL No. 10/2024) was working with the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant since 31.07.2007. Their services were confirmed by the employer. The workmen were served with Articles of Charge on the ground that they were involved in tampering milometer of vehicles of the Company. The said Articles of Charge were issued on 01.12.2014. Both the workmen filed their reply to Articles of Charge on 06.12.2014 and 05.12.2014 respectively. Subsequent to filing of replies to Articles of Charge, both the workmen tendered their voluntarily resignations on 14.01.2015 and their resignations were accepted by the employer. The workmen made complaint before the police authorities on 20.05.2015 which was registered under Section 155 of CrPC. It is also stated in the statement of claim that the complaint was made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and consequently conciliation proceedings were drawn and finally the workmen were advised to approach Competent Court. Both the workmen examined themselves before the learned Labour Court, exhibited documents, but the employer failed to examine any witness and finally the impugned awards were passed.

3. Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the employer would argue that the Articles of Charge were issued against the workmen on 01.12.2014, where specific allegations were that they tampered with milometer of the trucks engaged with the company for transportation of the goods. He would contend that the workmen filed their reply wherein they categorically stated that in future they would never repeat such mistake. He would submit that on 14.01.2015 both the workmen tendered their resignations and same were accepted by the management on 14.01.2015. He would contend that the workmen made complaint before the police authorities after 04 months on 20.05.2015 without explaining delay part. He would submit that the workmen could not place on record complaints made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to demonstrate that immediately after 14.01.2015 complaints were made. He would submit that burden was on the workmen to establish the fact that the resignations were outcome of coercion, force or influence. He would submit that the learned Labour Court has committed error of law while allowing the statement of claim and directing their reinstatement with 25% of back wages. He would pray to allow these petitions. Mr. T