,, // 54 ”a! THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, ' CHHATTI3QARH C9 WRIT PETlTiON NO. 250 q OF 2§02 WRIT PETHTHON UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA PET!T!ONERS 1 . State of Chhattisgarh, thrcugh the Secretary, Forest Department, Mantyamya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Divisional Forest Officer, Ferest Division, Durg ‘(Chhattisgarm Forest Ranger, Baiod, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Q Q g ’“A «AV Q ‘QL- .\ B Versus aw” RESPONDENTS 1. Ku. Rekha Bai, resident of Kurmi Para, Baiod, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presiding Qfiicer, Labour Court, District Durg r (Chhattisgarh) HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2609 of 2002 Petitioners State of Chhattisgarh 8r. others Versus Respondents Ku. Rekha Bai and another Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. mihotri. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Dcputy Government Advocate for the pe1i11‘oners. ORAL O R D E R (12thJune, 2006) 1. The present petition Eed under Article 226/ 227 of the Constituh'on of India challenges the impugned awald dated 7.5.2002 passed by the Presiding Ohicer, Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Coult, Durg in Case No. 16/K.T. A—111/1.D. Act/2000 {Ref}, wherein the Labour Court had directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service or altematively pay a sum of Rs. 75,000] - as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 2. The undisputed facts in nutshell axe that the respondent No. 1 was appointed by the petitioners on 10.10.1991 on the post of Labourer. Her services was terminated vide order dated 31.12.1988. The respondent No. 1 nled an application under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Region, Raipur. The Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court, Durg for adjudication \of the dispute. The Labour Court, atter having considered all the facts came to the conclusion that the termination order was bad in law, as the services of the respondent No. 1 was terminated without notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation. t i t / Accordingly, the award was passed, directing the petitioners to minstate the respondent No. 1 in service or alternatively pay a sum of Rs. 75,000] - as compensation in lieu ofreinstatement. Leamed conned appealing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a casual labourer and as such she was not entitled to notice or retrenchment compensation. I have gone through the impugned award petition and other documents appended to the petition 1t 1s found that there 1s no pervers1ty or irregularity 1n passmg the awaxd of the Labour Court which needs interference by this Court under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The award is based on the sunicient evidence and on proper application of law. Admittedly, the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensanon in lieu of reinstatement. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.