MANRAKHAN LAL KHANDEY vs MANAGING DIRECTOR Advocate - HARSHAL CHOUHAN, ,N.NAHA ROY,N.NAHA ROY,RAJ SHENGALE — WA/474/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th June 2026.
CNR: CGHC010096302026
Filing Number
WA/5497/2026
Filing Date
09-Mar-2026
Registration No
WA/474/2026
Registration Date
15-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
LABOUR MATTERS ( 1 )
Sub-Category
DISMISSAL. ( 101 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 18-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MANRAKHAN LAL KHANDEY
Adv. ABHISHEK SINGH,S.P.KALE,S.P.KALE, ,AMOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAV,AMOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAV,LAV SHARMA,S.P.KALE
Respondent(s)
-
1.MANAGING DIRECTOR Advocate - HARSHAL CHOUHAN, ,N.NAHA ROY,N.NAHA ROY,RAJ SHENGALE
-
2.District Marketing Officer, Mungeli,
-
3.In- Charge
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF
Case Summary: Manrakhan Lal Khandey v. MARKFED & Others (WA 474/2026) The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's writ appeal, upholding the Labour Court's dismissal of his service termination dispute on jurisdictional grounds. The appellant, a cooperative society employee terminated in 2016, failed to plead or prove he was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or that the society was an "industry"—foundational requirements under the Act. The court found these omissions fatal, preventing Labour Court jurisdiction despite acknowledging non-compliance with termination procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
-
09-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WA/474/2026
Case Summary: Manrakhan Lal Khandey v. MARKFED & Others (WA 474/2026) The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's writ appeal, upholding the Labour Court's dismissal of his service termination dispute on jurisdictional grounds. The appellant, a cooperative society employee terminated in 2016, failed to plead or prove he was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or that the society was an "industry"—foundational requirements under the Act. The court found these omissions fatal, preventing Labour Court jurisdiction despite acknowledging non-compliance with termination procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts