c^' ^ IN THB Hl6gL^30URT OF JHDICAiyBE SS BIIASpgR ( CG.) w•P.NO. J's-s-/_/2001 PgriTIONE^ By. Director, Paaetiayat & toGial Serviee, SsNtrabaai, I3urg (CG) . V_E_R_SU_S RESBONBEK'ES \[:Q-^^^ ........•^^1^' ^•^^^s^^ ^t^"-"^ ...).-'••• : l.Stu-i. l.alaan, S/Q Shri RaghuaandaB, Ctr Na.04, H-Aveaue,. A-Zaae, Kturusipar, Sector-ll. Bhilai, Iri.st .Durg (CG) . ^? ^ 2.Presiiaing Offlcer, Laboar Ceart, Darg. 3.Asstt.Laboai: CSianission er, La&our Divtsion, narg . Aa>e> ^RIT PETITION UHDER ARTICLE 227 QF THG COBSriTOTIQN. OF INDIA sli''::1~i:lliEBni-SL—L-' ...._^ ;&HC—78 s^?f '^n T^n^ | 's" 3"^l sini'B' ['<">—e;"t"*s!( iBi-iissiagft ISSSvl- + 'iWvfi %'<t' 3^ <-i<l<i!diJ, '^r^THS'; TsT^ra^p ..t-J..^;..Na.;..l?r'J.a??Z. ,uv ^T^i" ^^? (^t^^:?) ( Wsv we, 'EBpferan irmrif •S feT^ ^(<!R % StRpT 3'i^i ^nig^pa^ Shri Ranbir Siagh, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on tfae question ofquluussion. This writ petition is ditected against the order dated j 06-12-2000 passed by the Pres^duig Of&cer, ladustrial Disputes Act, Labour Court, Dui^ ia casejNo.l4/I.D./Reference/98. Against thc ordcr of reiuqval, fhc respondcnt Lahuan had 1 —. . approacbed fhe Assistaat Labcjur Conunissioner. However, as no conciliation could be broujght about a failtire report was subinitted, thereupon the appippriate govenunent being of the opuuon;3B§feaeAthataa iadustijial dispute did exist, referred the same for adjudication by fhe laboxu- Court. Tbe question for adjudication was 'TRT ^ft crtld^ sn» '(y'l'c;^ '^ ^gr yraq5;tcf^nr ^r ^9 ^RT t ? ^ ?l€t ^t ^ f^H •M^l^?!! c^ ^ra' t '?? ^H vsssf ^ Pi^uiH ^t ??rr f?r$?( f^ ^riT^ ^7fi"& i" "CmM-'i. -+ ^ W, 'RFTR? s^^ 'w^^ rS;ll^ ^nm^w, ^TRTTS, Tqciray iNdS »*<!ej-< MS.:.'!^o..:.lSS.l).9-f:o).. FT 200 ^i^i ^y.^ {'l^ll^q^ ^aiw «Ti?g3?R?r —-2^ %T;>feift;!'lTItRff'cf fe?t tfiR?TC i i73ifgiT3fftn OnSeu^noticedTy fheTT^Bour (^iut, 'EoB5—EE~^iiGes— filed their claim. Accordiug to as a Chowkidar on 01-12-13 IIie einployee, he was appoiated 90 and that wifh efifect fiom 08-01-1992, he was regularizet^ aud hc was pajd regular wages, which were payable to a permqnent eiaptoyee. His grievaace is fhat on 10-06-1996, he was holduig any doincstic removed fioin semce without aad in contravcntion of thc provisions containcd ia Sectioq 25(F) ofthc Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, his reincjval was uulawful/illegal aad he was entiUed to reiastatenient wipi back wages. The second party filed 4 written statemcnt dcnying fhe claiin. However, though the first party/employee entered fhe witness box aad gave his stete|nent in support ofbis case, the sccond party that is, the pctititaer hcrein faUcd to appcar aad i "' adduce any cvidcncc in suppor^ of his dcfencc. Accordingty, fhe Industrial Court accepted fhfe un-rebutted cvidencc of thc einployee aad held in his favodr. The Industrial Cotirt held the order of reinoval to be void an' back wages. directed reiastatecuent without _.L—, ^SSi^-ft.^^ m i-HC—78 ^SSI ^|A||d<<, 8\-)|'M<|(c, T^fRTER ..J^K.^^ S.TOT T] f?TO? aan sns^ !i3<rt i.iriit.hy »1< W -3- '*i«f[<rt<ft!T ^Mvfi i! TSCSi TfsF ^ stRn 3nt?i Having heaid leamed couiisel, fhe Court is not iacUned to entertaui this writ petition. Si^ice, fhe second party (petitioner hereia) did not appear before J the Coi.ut to tead evidence ia 1 support of his contentions and ^o rebut that of the employee, no error can be said to have beeu|conuiutted by fbe Labour Court ia accepting fhe un-rebutted/unchaUenged evidencc of the petitioner. j In view of fhe above, thej petition fajls and is disinissed. Consequeatfy, M.W.P.No.334/2p02 and I.A.No, 6575/2002 also staad disposed of. P. C. Naik Judge !"r—'