^-•aasgl ( -y .-if Ry.^^-^Ii fss'"^l-HC—7S ';"^' «>' -® 'g'51 '^ll-ifiM'i, SSTfl'M'lfi, fsidK-y sK'n v. 'ws- '-wsrsw^w 3n^iT5Rr(iyfj<<^) ^nWHfs^ aiw wRferih •RpRif •? feiCT ^R?re NVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR, DHIREN&RA HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANt^AKAR. JJ Wrif 4epealNo, 1U/2009 (Appeal U/s 2 Clause (1) ofl the C.G. Hioh Court (Amea\ to Division Bebch) .4ct, 2006) APPELLANT Petitioner Versus RESPONbENTS Respondents 06,08,2009 MISHRA <S 6^nd Lal Sahu, S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu,aged 61 ye^rs, PrBSident Chhattisgarh Parivahan K4'amchai''i Sangh, Rajnandgaon, Sanjay N^gar, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) l.[ Managing Director, Rajnandgaon Roadway Private Limited, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2.J Msnaging Director Shri Preetam Singh Garcha, Kanker Roadways, Head Officer Sandhi Udyan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Presiding Officer (typed as President Officer) Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgar-h) 4. 5. Labour Commissioner', Raipur (Chhattisgarh) State of r Chhattisgarh through Secretary Labour Oepartment, DKS Bhawan, ftaipur (Chhattisgarh) 6. Regiona! Transport Officer, Raipur" (Chhattisgarh) 7.1 Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 'ffvT"^v^'^- v— --•'.; -Y -^;-.'. ^^ K .I (? .r,t a''BS11;l.. ..-&"'"'l, r'^t''^tn SaSia. aa.'''Xl-HC—7S •¥Ti^i^T t^Tt^ w sf^y.ww ^s*. ^-^ ^sr ^ii-qiM'-j, eiTijy'is, fsiciwy 31T??r fl* ('j'ii^f'^) ^WWnfST'SraT -^L - c.t Wrafepfrl liTCRTf •? fS^ TfsR^TC ^3tfi"I3t!^T Mr. H.B. Agarwal, ^r. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Harit, Depu^y Advocate Senerol for the State. Heard. This writ appeal unde|' sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh /\c1f, 2007 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred against the orcfer dated 28.2.2009 passed in W.P (s) No.201/08 whereby aforesai^l writ petition has been dismissed with the following observation:- "4. It is well-nigh s^ttled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of Court below, exceptl its supervisory jur'isdiction under Article 227 of the Ccjnstitutioh of India, should refrain itself from interferiiji9 with the order passed by the in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregular'ity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case." I Mr. A9arwal, learned' Senior Counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M.M.T.C i Limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and others reported in (2009) I SCC 8 submits that though the appellant/petitioner filed the _._.^;*J —(B. iill!il6»,. •-a^\.\ •-•..ssi^l-HC—JS 3FT^l ^T T^TE^ ?iqi STi^i'aiqN' ~7SI -tfWM-",, 'S^ftWTS, fsRTTRy *<ncfla»w^ 3T??rT@?T( TRiiwgft^ ani'B -^ '*iJ-i!<-i4!TqroTf'? ^cS tfSF^R ^srRpisn^ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, looking to the nature of cojitroversy and prayer involved in the writ petition, the writ appeal und^r the Act is maintainable. In the instant case, ex-parte award was pa^sed on 23.12.2002 by the Labour Court and the respondents we.re direfcted to reinstate the labourers with all consequential benefits. Houfiever, ex-parte award was set aside after four years vide order dated| was dismissed vide award reference is illegal, contraryl law. On the other hand, 3 12.5.2006 and reference of the petitioner dated 31.1.2007. The award passed in to law and against the provisions of labour hri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate Seneral for the State relyi^ig upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Sankla etc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc. reported in 2(?08 AIR SCW 7923 submitted that from bare perusal of Section 2 (1) of the Act it is evident that an appeal lies from a judgment or order passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no appeal lies against an order passed in exercise ofi supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After going through ihe averments in the writ petition instituted by the appellant/petitioner' {ind the order of learned Single Judge, it is ^ ssss *^a-A y^ e 1 uraa^g jl f»."f lBal''"SSM-HC-78 iTC?I ^'fe:'N ^si iB"Sl ;R»tRr •ia "ysf •^m^'-i, fffli+ns, F^diyy 3?'^?r Ti^ (lyE^^«T) WIWBftaaTC^ 1 qmfefft';itirwff'?1?%t'^f;??R T ^3ifTO3?i^r evident that the petitioner had impugned the awar-d of the labour tribunal only on the ground t^iat the award in favour of the petitioner was set aside after four year^ on the application of the respondents by invoking Article 227 of the C^nstitution of India and the tearned Single Judge had set aside the petition in exercise of power-s of superintendence under Articl^ 227 of the Constitution of India. The principle of law taid down in •(he matter of M.M.T.C. Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts of ('he present case. On the basis of aforesijiid discussions, we are of the opinion that the instant writ appeal un^ter Section 2 (1) of the Act is not maintainable as the same is a^ainst the order passed by learned Single Judge in the supervisory urisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. i /lccordingly, the writ[ appeal is not maintainable, the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, hereby dismissedas not maintainable. No order as to costs. '. -____ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judfee Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge r? ^ .^ea.»....sa^'