RTFEE EXMTED ‘BY wmnouuo ”swam/xx- wcmos xui'oF me As vecm'sn mum FEESAcT m scammg 1310 wi7 éa‘"‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE T BILASPUR z (CHHATTISGARm 1 1 WRIT PETITIONytLiNo. [@tg ‘ 12009 Single Bench WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . § / l PETITIONER : The Divisional Forest Offlcar, Forest Divisio District Rajnant’dgaon. i VERSUS v] zf‘ RESPONDENT i : K§ukhdeshi Nishsad, i S/o Trimohan, f _\‘ R/ o Village Mergegaon, A. Chowki, " District Rajnandgaon‘ (CG.) ¢ i { r 1 l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) N0. 1843 of2009 W%IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22‘7 OF THENCONSTITUTION OF INDIA. SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocaite General for the i State/petitioner. [ 1 PrCSjcnt: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocéte with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER ORAL‘ (Passed on 3ot day ofMal-gzh, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 29.05.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case N0. 86/ID/2007 (Ref) whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to .reinstate the respondent in service with 20% backwages. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that the respondent preferred a statement of claim before the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act, 1947’) alleging that‘ the respondent had continued for 240 days with the petitioner on the permanent vacant post of Watchman and thus, his removal from service without grant of notice or salary in lieu of notice, was bad. The respondent prayed for reinstatement in service with full backwages. The petitioner filed its reply wherein it was submitted that the respondent was a muster roll employee and not appointed any permanent vacant post. He was appointed on daily wages basis. It was further submitted that the respondent had never worked for a x A x PETITIONER z The Divisio alForestOfflcer. ‘ Z VERSUS T RESPONDENTS . 2 period of 240 days'in any year. hus, his removal from service cannot be held as illegal. A proper notice was also issued to the respondent before his removal, w lich was not’ appreciated by the learned Lab'our Court and directed to reinstate the respondent in service with 20% backwages. ' On the other hand, Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Smt. Meera JaisweJl, Advocate for the respondent submits that counsel appearing fo’r respondent submits that the t order passed by the learned Labour Court is just and proper'and‘ needs no interference. Onlperusal of the affidavit of the petitioner dated 22.04.2009 it‘ appears that the petltloner has been 1e1nstated 1n serv1ce However I v1de the order dated 17 06 2009 passed by this Court the effect u and operation ‘of the impugned award dated 29.05.2008 to the . extent of grant of back—wages, was stayed. The Labour Court has not recorded a clear finding asto whether ¥ the respondent had worked for 40 days in the preceding year, i except that the respondent was a daily wager engaged on Muster Roii'and had worked tiii January, 2000 from the year i994. The § ' finding recorded by the Labour Court is not sufficientto come to a ‘ conclusion that since he had Worked from 1994 to January 2000, therefore, it inay be presumed that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year before the order of removal was passed. It‘was also observed that retrenchment allowance to the tune of Rs. 9000/— was paid after two months of the removal of the respondent from service. a J ‘ 3 prnpe lw i well td 1 hs eg i The icil of a s setle n ti rard as n Sita a & Other v. oti La hru Fae Traing Istitutel, Rm s M l Ne rmrs ni n the upreme Crt, hving consir severl decision S ou a deed a s, bserved s undr: o a e 16. Aloug at n pot of tibthe buen of us to laced o e employ, Vew of a aen cn esions it u e held that t burden pr n th wokah t show tat e cpleted 40 dasin a year.” I In View of the above, the impned order date 9.05.08 ug d 220 nnue /l) i quashed Howe egar h t (Aexr P s . evr, having rd to te facs n o te casewhn fdig h rgar t rkg f situatio f h erei the inn wit ed o woin o i t sondent for ays in a eding year, has ot be he rep 240 d prce n en cosid and rordd, the matte remitted ac to abou ’ nered ece r is bk the Lr Co fo cnsider the ase rh afte afrding i urt r oing c a fes r fo an oppotuny g to e ti ced T Lr C f rit of hearin th pares conrne. he abou ourt is further ireced to consider ad cide the ae xpeitiously, dt n de sm ed j pferaly within iod of our onts ro today. reb a per f mh fm Accordi, thrt tit s allo. No rder as ost. ngly e'wi peion i wed o to cs , 5d/_ g ni ‘ 1 baush Jude“ K.Aghotri _ . Amit 1’ 1 (2008) 5 soc 75 thh oe in me rd proof ed be p n th er in i cta of reet dci mst b he of oof is o e rm o h h has om 2 yl «a