^Job.^-:^$!f^ y^^y-6:'i!""\. ' b.t?-'-"' ...•" ^o.--"" c;w'i^-r'T7- -..—•""" W ^' 'fL \o ^>..--'"" .Bfr"'/»>\ k> i.':-'"-" A.--"' A»WO BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGRAH. AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Petition No. 3!^ 1 2006. SINGLE BENCH Petitioner Vs. Respondent: Aaslam Khan son ofMustafa Khan. Resident of Camp No,1 near Teen Darshan Mandir. Ward No. 18, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Chhattisgarh, Infra Structural Development Corporation, D.K. Square. Near Mantralaya, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur. Petition underArt. 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India. for issuance ofWrite. in the nature of Ceri:iorarv. Mandamus. Prohibition and for other suitable write, orders or directions. iF? ^pn* XI-HC-78 *11*<WIS»»+1|ch 3^ -<ii<<ici<i, aiTfl'M'16, Rlcfltiy ..^^o..g.^^°^ ^ 200 3<i^i ^aw ('i'ifflo'^T) •an^rgirf?^ traT3T1^Tsh>1|i»i gRtTwn1?(T3n^r 30-6-2006:- app|el Shri Rajeev Shrivastava witi-| petitioner. By the instant petition, the| proprietyand correctness ofthe by the State Industrial Tribunal No.SO/CGIRAct/A-11/2005 whereby | aside the order of Labour Court, Labour Court allowing the petitioneif to take him on work. The petitioner| by the State industrial Tribuna! daf petition filed by the petitioner. 1 have heard learned couns^! perused the order of Labour Court a| Perusal of the record showsl was allowed to work as "Badli continued up to August, 1999, wheji he receiyed injuries including eye itiji incapacitated to workas driver. He| as per the record, he moved an DepotManager, Durg fortaking hin|] job, but as per the allegation of| removed him with effect from 11-$- before the Labour Court on 13-2-?( period of limitation is oneyear. Perusal ofthe impugned ord^r clinching evidence, the petitioner tt «ni<il<fl<(1-<iii<'iTffte^l'<Ri<^i< ^sri^Tan^r Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the petitioner has questioned legatity, lats order dated 16-11-2005 passed (phhattisgarh, Raipur in Civii Appeai the learned Industrial Tribunal set |Durg dated 2-2-2005 by which the \s appiication directed the respondent |has also questioned the order passed ^ed 19-4-2006 passed on the review for the petltioner on admission and i^ well as Appellate Court. that in the year 1995 the petitioner Vl/orker" in the M.P.S.R.T.C. and he he met with an accident and in that ifijury as a result of which he became lunderwent a treatment and thereafter |application on 9-12-2002 before the )i on duty and giving some alternative the petitioner, the Depot Manager -$-99. Thereafter, he filed the claim '003, that was time barred because shows that by adducing a legal and ilied to establish that he worked for ^ c,__c\—-r^—^ 1—^-^^;^ XI-HC-78 T5? '<II<<IC1<<, ®Tn^'IS,[stctlti^ *11Hdl VtfW* ^200 3ll^l MSIfi ('i'I^IS'T) 3n^TqirR.fi<() craT3(1^T.»>1 Bawe ^ OTmwnfera'n^T -A- about 240 days in a year, therefore, for the benefrt of Section 31 (3) of| 1961. The finding of learned evidence and the petitioner has not| petitioner was absorbed against the Worker, that too he failed to establj year. In the circumstances, the pelff a case for interference by this p Constitution of India. The petition i< dismissedand it is hereby dismisse(f. lit has been held that he is not entitled |the Industrial Disputes Relation Act, Tribtinal is based on the appreciation of Ibeen able to show on record that the regular sen/ice, he was simply a Badli jsh that he worked for 240 days in a qil<<Fl-l41-f H11(lTfffeL<fl iRl^K ^sri^Tsn^r ftioner has not been abie to make out Court under Articie 226/227 of the devoid of merit, same is liable to be No costs. Sdi- L.C.Bhsaoo Judge y V^S-Zf^^.