B j€t^^:' ^^•^^•^' ia^s e aSS 8£ITO< ^e's"*- ^.,. c^-\ ^~2r0 //!// IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.fL)No.5^7^008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -esi- I .^y ^'f^ Santosh Kumar Kori, S/o Shri Jagat Ram, R/o Prince Becri, Darri, Po.-Jamnipali, Distt. Korba (C.G.) VERSUS /l. StateofC.G" Water Respurces Dept. D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G) Executive Engineer Water Respurces Dept. RampurKorba, Distt.- Korba (C.G) Sub Divisional Officer Hasdav Dai Tat Nahar Sub.- Division No.2, Pantora, Darri, Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) 4. Presiding Officer Under Industrial DisputeAct Labour Court, Korba (C.G.) ^ v WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA mOH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fL) No. 5675 of2008 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Santosh Kumar Kori. VERSUS State ofC.G. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale,Advocateforthepetitioner. ShriP.K.Bhaduri,Advocatefofthe State/respondentNo. lto3. ORDERrORAl^ (Passed on08thdayofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Courf, Korba, in case Na 9/IDAct/05 Ref., whereby the claim of the petitionerhas been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and in the light of several decisions, the petitioner can not be directed to be reinstated or regularized. SIiri Kale, leamed couasel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner is govemed under the provisions of Sections 25B & 25F ofthe Ihdustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1957"). If the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of calendar year, he is entitled for grant of retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Section 25F ofthe Act, 1947. Hefurthersubmitsthatthatevenprovisionsofsection25Gof the Act, 1947 has also not been considered and the petitioner has been removed from the service. The Court below without examining the matter on merits and without reeording any finding with regard t6 work; ofthe petitioner as well as dther consequential benefits, in a casual and cryptic manner, relying on various decisions of the Supreme court asi well as ofthis Court, dismissed the application ofthe petitioner. •t Shri Kale places his reliance upon the decisionofthe Supreme Court rend.ered in Ramesh Kumar v. Stae ofHaryana . In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed as under : "13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made in contravention of recruttment rules and constitutiona! scheme of employment. However, in view ofthe materials placed before the Labour Court and in this Cdtirt, we are satisfied that the said principle would not apply^in the case on hand. As rigbtty pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity ofservicefor which he is legally entitled to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen is whether a worhnan has completed240 days inthepreceding 12 months or not. If sufficient materials are shown that worhnan has completed 240 dcys then his service cannot be termmated •without giving ', notice or compensationin lieii ofit in terms ofSection 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in Ueu of it was given to him, in such circuinstances Ms termination was illegal. Allthe decisions relied onby the High Court are not applicable to the case on hand more particularly, in view ofthe specific factual finding bythe Labour Court." Applying the well settled prmciples oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand, wherein the Court below without adverting the factiial disputes misunderstood the ratio laid down in the above stated cases and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.fhe impugned order dated 01.04.2008 (Aimexure P/l) is quashed aiid the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to consider and decide fhe case of the petitioner afiresh in the light ofRamesh Kumar and other decisions. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. '.I Sd/- Satish K. Aghihotri Judge