Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 05/11/2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Factory Manager, Jindal Steel Limited (formerly Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.), Kharsia Road, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
- Respondents: 1. Sumer Singh, aged about 39, resident of Heerwa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 2. Labour Court, Raigarh, represented by its Presiding Officer.
- Petition: Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Labour Court’s order dated 16 Oct 2026 in case No. 8/ID Act/2016, which denied the petitioner the right to examine a bank officer and related salary documents and fixed the matter for final argument without allowing further evidence.
- Background:
- The industrial dispute originated when the petitioner alleged wrongful termination; the Labour Court initially awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages (Award dated 20 Feb 2020).
- The award was challenged in WPL No. 01 of 2021 on 05 Jul 2023; the High Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court for proper evidence taking.
- The Labour Court’s remand order was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 320 of 2023.
- The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court (SLP(C) No. 21394 of 2023); the Supreme Court dismissed it on 30 Apr 2024.
- Subsequently, the petitioner sought examination of the bank officer and salary documents; the Labour Court refused and scheduled the case for final argument on 16 Oct 2026.
- Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioner argued that the Labour Court had not expressly closed the right to lead further evidence and that fixing the matter for final argument without such opportunity was illegal. He requested the order dated 16 Oct 2026 be set aside.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court observed that while the Labour Court was within its authority to decline the specific request to examine the bank officer, it erred by not granting the petitioner any opportunity to lead additional evidence.
- The order fixing the matter for final argument without such opportunity was deemed “labile” (flawed) and therefore liable to be quashed.
Final Outcome
- The order dated 16 Oct 2026 passed by the Labour Court is quashed.
- The Labour Court is directed to provide at least two opportunities for the petitioner to lead evidence other than the bank officer.
- The petitioner must avoid undue adjournments and complete the case by 3 Dec 2026.
- Since the order was passed in the petitioner’s absence, the petitioner retains the right to file an application for recalling or reviewing the High Court’s order if dissatisfied.
- The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Topics: Legal Remedy, Industrial Dispute, Evidence Rights