IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5813 OF 2017
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36862/2016]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. APPELLANT(S)
KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5815 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36863/2016,
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5816 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36864/2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5818 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36865/2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5825 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36869/2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5827 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 346/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5828 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11431/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5832 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11433/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5833 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 10912/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5834 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11430/2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5835 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.14281/2017 @
CC No(s). 7815/2017
J U D G M E N T
2. Leave granted.
3. The only issue in these cases is, whether the learned Single Judge of
the High Court was justified in making the classification while interfering
with the award passed by the Labour Court, between those who had ten years
of service and those with less than ten years of service.
4. We are afraid, the approach made by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court is not sustainable under law. The only relevant consideration
is, whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year
continuous service. It was that legal error that was corrected by the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment.
5. We are informed that all the respondents/workmen have been working
ever since the award was passed by the Labour Court. That means all the
respondents have been working for quite some time now.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1/State has submitted
that the State may not have sufficient work for accommodating the
respondents. If that be so, it is for the appellant No.1/State to take
appropriate steps in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Industrial Disputes Act, without prejudice to any other liberty available
to them to act in accordance with law.
7. We also find that a coordinate Bench of this Court has already dealt
with the similar issue leading to order dated 03.01.2017 rendered in Civil
Appeal No.34 of 2017 declining to interfere with the award passed by the
8. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
MAY 01, 2017.