Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE 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)                                 VERSUS

KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP RESPONDENT(S) WITH

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 KURIAN, J.

Delay condoned. 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.

Page 2

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 Labour Court. 8. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand

Page 3

disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; MAY 01, 2017.