.^ tt—s HIGH CQURTPF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetition No^336^f 2002 Petltioner : General Manager(O.S.D.) Bengal Nagpur Cotton MiUs Rajnandgaon (Chliattisgarh) Respondent Versus :l. Bharaflal, S/o Tikulal, C/o Harish Chandra Rishi, Advocate, Rajnandgaon. 2. Dircctor, Guald WcU Security Ser'rices, 701/94, Meghdoot Buildmg, Nehru Palace, New DeUii. 2. Industrial Court, Through Meinber Judge, Raipur. Sin^e Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Affiihotri SIui Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for fhe Respondents. ORAL ORDER (12th January, 2006) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Security Guard on 15.12.1980 fhrougfa respondent No. 2. Service ofthe respondent Np. 1 was tenninated by order dated 27/28.7.1982 withoutany enquity aud sbow cause notice Beiag aggrieved, the order of termmation of service, the respondent No. 1 filed an appHcation before the Labour Court, RaJQaffdgaon ui Case No. 19/MPIR Act/87. The Labour Court by its order dated 28.10.1991 held that tbe service of the respondent No. 1 was tenniaated without notice and as such it was violative of the a—iiassta'fe.- ^l 8. provisions of the Industrial Relations Act In the facts and ciTcuiastaiices of fhe case, the petitioner was reiastated ia service. However arrears ofdifiference ofwages was not granted on fhe ground the respondent No. 1 was not held as ""laboiir" under the provisions of fhe M.P. ludustrial Relations Act, 1960. The petitioner Manageinent filed appeal before the Industrial Gourt being Appeal No. 608/MPIR Act/91 agamst the order dated 28.10.1991 passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court dismissed fhe appeal by judgineut aad order 3ated 19.5.2001, directing reiaslateinent ofthe respondent No, 1 in the service on fhe ground fhat the respondent No. 1 was held as employee of the petitioner. Finding and order passed by the LabouT Court was upheld. The xaatter was taken up for heanng on 1.11.2002, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, thereafter, the petition was agaia listed on 5.12.2002 and fhe leamed counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjouminent On 7.11.2005, ngain none appeared on behatf of the petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, tearaed counsel for fhe petitroner subuuts fhat the petitioner compaay has been liquidated, without any inaterial facts or evidence in support ofthis contention. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner aad perused documents appended to fhe petitiou. The Labour Court passed the order on 28.10.1991, directir^ reinstatenient of the respoadent No. 1 ia the service. The petitioner neither reinstated nor coinpUed with the provisious of Section 65 (3) of th? M.P. Industriat Relations Act, 1.960 (hercinafter referred to as ''-MPIRA"), even after fhe present impugned order was passed on 19.5.2001, fhe petitioner has deliberately and iatentioaaUy feiled to [1, Wi 9. 10. 11, coinply with the statutoiy provisioiis of Section 65 (3) of MPIRA. The petitioner has also not furfh.er obtained aay iaterim reUef or stay of fhe unpugiied order by fhiscourt. Looking into the conduct of fhe petittoner firsfly by not appearing before the court on several occasions aad secondly bynot coinplyiag wifh. fhe provisions of Section 65 (3) ofMPIRA, it is dcsirable fhat fhis petition be disinissed. Even ofheiwise there is no material irregularity aad fhere is sufG.cient and cogent evidence to support reasoning aad decision ofthe uupugned order. This court under Articles 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India has limited scope of interfereace with the orders passed by fhe Labour Court as weU as IndustrialTribiuial. lu view offhe foregoing, the petitioner is directed to coinply wifh the order dated 19.5.2001, passed by the Industrial Coiut in Appeal No. 608/MPIR Act/91 withiu a pcriod of three nionths firoai today i.e. 12.01.2006. . In fhe facts of fhe case, fhis petition steads disinissed. No order as to costs. SdA satISI^K.Aguifiotri r~"'. ;1; Judge'-)" ^"