State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS. v. M.Bharat And ANR.

l^t@l IN THEMIGHSOURTOiF.JUDieATOREATBILASPUR l^ WRIT PETITION N0.' /2006 PETITIONER (S) State of Chattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Forest Mantralay Bhawan ^..^- ,^^ ^y f'yy'

Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director ^ Kanger Ghati National Park » Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

VERSUS

M. Bharat RESPONDENT(S) S/oM.A.Raju R/o New Forest Colony In front of DFO Bunglow y ^ \f Qtr. No. C-2, Kumharpara Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2.

Presiding Officer Labour Court Jagdalpur(C.G.) '^-t, 1;:":L-'-.i3'-:°^^-^-'.J^i^^LL'J^:'z;~ 7^''

i-7n -2- ( APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPNo.1754 of 2004 State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

-- Petitioner

Versus

M.BharatAndAnr.

-- Respondent WPNo.1820 of 2006 State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

-- Petitioner

Versus

• M.BharatAndAnr.

-- Respondent For Petitioners/State Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Addl. AG and Shri Shashank Thakur, GA For Respondent-workman Shri Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 01/12/2016 1.

The first writ petition bearing WP No. 1754/2004 has been preferred by the State to assail the ex parte award dated 06.03.2003 and the order dated 28.04.2004, whereby the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex parte award has been dismissed.

The second petition bearing WP

No.1820/2006 has been preferred to assail the recovery notice issued against the State in execution of the award, which is under challenge in the first writ petition.

2.

The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the labour Court, Jagdalpur on the allegation that he was engaged as Daily Rated Typist in June, 1993 and was continuously working up to 24.02.1999 for more than 240 days in each calendar year, yet he was removed from service without issuing any show cause notice or any ^ € order of termination. It was alleged that the concerned Qfficer of the Kanger Valley National Park, Jagdalpur orally instructed him not to attend duties.

In reference proceedings, the petitioners preferred their written statement denying that the respondent was engaged against any clear vacancy and further mentioning that he was engaged on daily wages depending on the availability of work and not as a regular incumbent, therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement. The petitioners, however, remained absent after filing of written statement failed to cross-examine the respondent workman when he entered the witness box. Similarly, the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence in support of their defence.

3.

The labour Court concluded that respondent's termination amounts to illegal retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the^Act, 1947') and

•^^s"'' •• s^"-^:

S- sf^ ""'i Si.

(» ° ¥'

^? v^sa^ t * ~-ruv -' '\ .'^ '.\ ..'•'

.' • since he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year, he is entitled for reinstatement. 4.

Having heard learned counsel for the partjes and on perusal of the record, it would appear that the workman had initially worked from June to 24.02.1999 after his reinstatement, he joined on 12.07.2004 is presently working by way of protection under Section 17B of the Act, 1947, however, the fact remains that the respondent has now worked for a total period of 18 years.

5.

Since there is no infirmity in the order proceeding ex parte against the petitioners, as it is a case of sheer negligence in making appearance before the labour Court, the evidence led by the respondent workman remained unrebutted. In view of this, the findings recorded by the labour Court that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, does not call for any interference being pure ^:

finding of fact. Granting monetary compensation in lieu of the order of reinstatement would not serve the ends of justice in the case because the petitioner has already worked for about 18 years, therefore, this Court does not find any substance in both the writ petitions.

6.

The petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Nirala Prashant Kumar iViishra Judge _-_J