HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1419 of 2002 l Petitioner Cement Corpoxation of India Versus Respondent Rashtnya Cemant 8L Khadan Shmrmk Sanghatan ’ Single Bench : Hon’ble, Mr, Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shn' PIS. Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri SP, Kale, counsel for respondent. , L5“ ORAL ORDER (2nd March, 200§) The following order of the Coult was passed by Satish K. Agihotrl, J. 1. This petition is filed by the Management-petitioner impugning the order dated 26.6.2002 (Annexuxe P- 1) passed by the Industn'al Court in Case No. M.P.I.R./Appea1/A—11/2001 upholding the‘oxder dated 18.7.2001 passed by the Presiding Omcer, Labour Court, Bilaspur in case No. 75/M.P.I.R. Act/97. 2. The facts in nutshell are that 8 employees of the respondent Sanghatan working With the petitioner Corporation hled an application before the Labour Court clamjng regulan'zation of their serv1ce wef 3695 The Labour Court passed the award dated 18 7 2001 after cons1denng the case of the respondent Sanghatan without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner for putting fotward its case. On perusal of the order of the Labour Court, it appears that the petitloner was given somel e to produce its W1tnesses However, the Labour Court proceeded mthout granting further hme and passed the award exparte against the petltoner. The Labour Court aHDWEd the applicatioxl and dilected tha patitioner to mgularize thc servicwof 8 employecs of the respondent Sanghatan w.e.f. 3.6.95 and further to grant diEemnces ofwages w.e.f. the same date. 3. The Industrial Court upheld the award by its oxder dated 26.6.2002 without considering the facts as to Whether the petitioner ought to have been directed to consider the case of the reSpondent employees for Iegularization with retrospective eEect hom 3.6.95 or not. K 4. The petitioner has tiled this petition praying that the petitioner be granted opportunity for adducing its evidence before the Labour Court. 5. At this stage, Shri S.P. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, with the President of Sanghatan and other alfected 8 employees namely Ranbir Singh Thakur, Ram Sanehi Yadav, B. Sitaramaiya, Sachida Nand Singh, Manoj Kumar, Sajevan Kumar Sallu, Bideshi Ram Nirmalkar and Dilip Kumar Gahatraj, submits that the employees are agreeable to the order, if the award is made eEective from the date, the impugned award was passed i.e 18.7.2001, prospecu'vely. 6. In View of the fair submission made by learned counsel for the respondent Sanghatan and other 8 affected employees, who are present in the Court, it is not necessary to go into other aspects of the matter. 7. The petition stands disposed of with the above-stated modincation to the eh'ect that the order of the Labour Court will be ed‘ective w.e.f. 18.7.2001, not from 3.6. 1995. No order as to costs. ' 5d:- / Satish K.Agnihotr'l ‘ p 1L Judge “V/ . Mm“ . ,