COURT By B/c.G./o5/ NONHCMOM As SPECIHEE m VD SCHEDULE. gem/XXI x. oFTHEcoumFEESACHsm SWM QEfki£3§§ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION LL) Ngz‘q‘O/QOIO PETITIONERS: 1. {ate of Chhattisgarh, Through ~ Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 1 was not a parity before the learned Labour Couri, but has been impleaded as Petitioner No. 1 herein as it is necessary to implead the State Govt. through the Secretary of concerned Department.) 2. ”The Executive Engineer, Kharang Water Resources Deptt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Lgmkumar Suryawanshi RESPONDENT: S/o. Late Makhanlal, Village 8t Post ~ Birkona (Misirpara) Tahsu & District — Bilaspur (co) f 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRITE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226j227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA ./, / , ~. .‘ 1) Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State/ petitioners, submits that this is a case wherein there is alleged violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the IDA”) and the Labour Court without appreciating the well settled principle of law that mere violation of provisions of Section 25F of the IDA does not entail reinstatement with backwages automatically. 2) On the other hand, Shri Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, submits that the employee has raised the dispute before the Labour Coutt in relation to the provisions of Section 25G of the IDA also stating clearly that the employer has violated the provisions of Section 25G as well as 25F of the IDA. The Labour Court has completely ignored the issue raised by the employee in respect of violation of Section 25G of the IDA. 3) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is apparent that the issue of violation of Section 25G of the IDA was specifically raised by the employee, the Labour Court, without adverting to the issue, has allowed the petition on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the IDA, which may not be sustainable in absence of violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the IDA. 4) In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to consider the issue in respect of alleged violation of Section 25G of the IDA, if any, afresh and pass appropriate order. In the meantime, since the employee has already been reinstated pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court, there shall not be any disturbance in his employment. Needful may be done as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO‘727O OF 2010 997 (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. Generai for the State/petitioners. Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 22” day of March, 201 1) / PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh & Another Versus RESPONDENTS Ramkumar Suryawanshi & Another