Purushottam Lal Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 255 of 2019 • Purushottam Lal Rathore S/o Shri Khamhan Prasad Rathore Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ratan Mahka, Post Dhadhra, Police Station and Tahsil Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration of Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Nagar Palik Nigam Through Municipal Council Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Vikram Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Judge Judgment on Board 16/05/2019 Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 1.

Challenge in this appeal against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge whereby interference has been declined with regard to the relief sought for in the writ petition for getting the verdict passed by the Labour Court implemented by invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.

We heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. 3.

We have gone through the materials on record. There arose an industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the appropriate Government and based on

the in facts and figures brought in evidence, the issue was finalized by passing an award.

4.

The Petitioner approached this Court contending that the benefit flowing from the award was not extended to him and hence interference of this Court was warranted. This was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that the High Court could not be converted as an execution Court and in the said circumstances, reserving the right of the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedy under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly, in terms of Section 33 (C) (2), the writ petition was dismissed. 5.

We do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity with regard to the course pursued by the learned Single Judge. There is absolutely no tenable ground to interfere with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. 6.

The appeal fails. It is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Anu