c^i ^ l_ IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHAmSGARH W.P. fS) N0. ^So(> /2006 PETITIONER fc; ^ .... o ^^1^^ffi. o^ cy -f" ^.^x**" ^0^...""°" AV...-""" i^safl?" *&'"'1' RESPONDENTS /• ^/^ll •f^. ^'/^ ^T^y Bharat Aluminum Company/^ Limited (BALCO), Through its Company Secretary Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary Labour, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Inspector under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh The Assistant Commissioner of Labour District Korba, Chhattisgarh Sri Madhusudan Patra Quarter No. 406/A/4 Balconagar District Korba, Chhattisgarh Bharat Aluminiurri Employees Union Shailendra Shailee Bhavan Opp Pushpraj Bal Sadan School Gurdwara Road Sector-6,Balconagar District Korba, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/22^0FTHE CONSTmON OF INDIA ' 3, t i,->u fr\; ;t3T HIGH OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR ^, fRIT PETITION (S) N0.6506 OF 2QOt PETITIONER Sharat Aiuminum Limited <BALCO) Company Versus State ofChhattisyarh & Others (Writ Petitit Sinaie 22s l!s, Sench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J, Present:- Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petifioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyerforthe State. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for the respondenti No.4 and 5. 1. 2. •ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 8th day of March, 2010) VVith the consent of' leamed counsel appearlng for the parties, the petition Is heard finally. Sy this petition, the petitjonfer chaiienges the legality and vaiidity of the order datsd 30-10-2006 (Annexure - P/12) passed by the inspector, Chhattisgarh Industriai Empioyment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 {for short "the Act, 1961") & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba, wherebyand whereunder the petitioner company was directed to compiy v«iththe' provisions contained under ciause 5-a of the.Certified Standing prders by recordinc Ihe date of birth ss mentioned m the schooi ieaving certificste i.e. transfer certificate as submitted by the employee/ ^,4 3. compiainant 'he case of the petitioner Gompany before this Court is that the n to decide the date of birth of tne .£ No.4/empioyeejamountsto adjudication of Inspector, exercising his power under Section 1961, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon reaard to date of birth of the emDlovees. disputes and the >'l • i ^? Ut l! |i the disDi ri Sinha, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner company, further submits that the identicai issue asto whether Orders) Act, 19i has power to adj Assistant the dispu1 he employer came up for consi CommissioRer, Korba, ween the empioyee and is< it was held that the Inspector has no power under Section 15 (2) of the Act, 1961 to adjudicate the disputes between the employer and the empioyee. In the present case there is a ;<2' (01 Seing aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the employee preferred an~ appea! before the Dlvision Bench of this Court being W.A.No.45 of 2007 {Bharat AIuminum Mazdoor Sangh 'IM" 0)1. 6. T.he Division Bench of this Court bv order dated 31-7-200i confirmed the orderdated 9-1-2007 passed by the Slngie Judge ho!ding that "s conjolnt readlng of sections 13, 15 & 17 of the ra 1 WP No. 1595 of 2006 (decned on 9-1-2007) S3. i^Wf 196- the mskes it ampiy clear that the powers o aid Act are not adjudicatory and the :ed to undertaka the exerdse of a> i,"s srs disputes, particulariy the disputes regarding appiication and mterpretation ofthe standingorders." Shri Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing resporidents No.4 & 5, very fairiy submits that the question of law involved ~i this oef son is squarely decisions of this Court rendered in the ered by .the eariier matters. 8. I have gone through the judgments rendered in Nianaging Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (BALCO) (supra) and Bharat iTi 10. KSUPla,1 ie issue Jnvoived in the case on hand is no ionger res integra, as the same . has aiready been settled by this Court. In view of forsgoing, the writ petition is allowed. However, iiberty is reserved to the respondent/empioyee to take recourse to aitematlve statutory forum that may be available to hlm unds the provisior.s of !aw. 'here wi!i be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotr1 Judge Gowri