.W, 3!§%§§.§: \ ,rr" “W\5‘ amwi". @ a CP/[gaL 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.1>. L No. ,~/~2996 \_ Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 Constitution oflndia. PETITIONER ShankarLal / ShankarLal Chouhan S/o Mahettarlal Chauhan R/o Rambhatha Road, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ~' x Chhattisgarh Inifastructure Devolpment Com. Through- Divisional Manager, C.I.D.C. (Transport Section) Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.) MP. Road Transport Corporation, ' Through— Managing Director, Head O$ce Habib Ganj Bhopal (M.P.) Industrial Com Through—Member Judge @ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 1M No. 25 of 2007 single Bench: Hon’blc Mr. Justice $atish K. Agnihotri. Shri S. P. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioncr. ORDER (Passed on this S‘h day of F‘ebmary, 2007) The present petition filed under Article 226] 227 of the Constituiion of ndia chansuges the validiiy of the omer dated 27112006 (Annexure P/8) passed by, the industrial Court/respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 47/CGIR Act/A—II/2006, whereunder the otder dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P16) passed by the Labour Court in Case No. Categoty—I/ A] 20/ CGIR Act] 2004 has been set-aside/ quashed. The undisputed facts, in bngf, ale that the petitioner was initially appointed as Badli employee 3h the post of driver in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. His services was transferred to the respondent No.1 on bifurcation of the then respondent No.2. The petitioner was disengaged in July, 2003 on the gmund that his services was no longer required. Being aggrieved the petitioner tiled an application under section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour ourt. The Labour Court vide order dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P/6),‘ after having considered all the facts held that since the petitioner was appointed as Badli driver in 1996 and thereafter he was continuing on I C I ‘ ‘ \ Petitioner : Shankar Lal Chouhan -Vcmus- Respondents : Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Developmnt Corporaiion Ltd. &. othcxs that post, the peiitioner was cn1if1ed to show cause notice befom removal of his service, thus it was held that the order of mmoval &om service was illogal. Accordingly, the Labour Court directcd reinstatement Within a period of 4-5 days in the service of the tespondent No. 1 and back wages W.e.f. Januaxy, 2003 to June, 2003 mm the respondent No. 1[employer. Being aggrieved the respondent/employer med an appeal before the Industrial Comt. The Industrial Court vide order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure PIS) held that the appointment of the petitioner was as badli driver and the application of the petitioner for regularization was dismissed by the Labour Court in Case No. IO/CGIR Act] 2003, thus the principle of res judicata is applicable. It was further held that the petitioner had not proved as to whether he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year against sanctioned post. Radlidar, being a temporary appointment is not entitled to reinstatement in service. ln view of the above, the Industrial Court quashed the order passed by the Labour Court and allowed the appeal tiled by the respondents] employer. Being aggrieved the petitioner has med this petition on the ground that though the peh'h'oner was appointed as Badli employee, in vw'w of the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days, the terminatbn of the petitioner from service is illegal Thus the order of the Industrial Court is bad, illegal and unjust. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is admittedly proved that the appointment of the petitioner was as a badli employee on the post of driver. As per the dennition, a badli employee means an employee who is employed on the post of a permanent employee, or a probationer'or a permanent seasonal employee who is tempow \ /. \ \ \ t Wg§w \ . \' \ \ absent. Since the appoinunent of the petiu'oner is not in accordance with the Rules or against sanctioned post, the petih'oner has no right to the post as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal council. Sujanpur Vs. Surimler Kumar { (2006) 5 S.C.C. 173}, in paragraph 18 has held as under:- ‘18. If a post is not a sanctioned one, again, appointment therein would be illegal. In MP. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava” this Court stated the law in the following wor$: (SCC p. 707, paras 8- 11) “8. A person with a view to obtain the status of a ‘permaneni employee’ must be appointed in terms #the statutory rules. It is not the case of the respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post which was duty sanaioned by the statutory authority or his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in theheld 9. The Labour Court urq‘ortunately did not advert to the said question and proceeded to pass its award on the premise that as the respondent had worked for more than six nwnths satisfacton‘fy in terms of clause 2(vi) of the Standard Standing Orders, he acquired the right of becoming pemmnent. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Labour Court relied only upon the oral statement made by the respondent. 1 0. It is one thing to say that a person was appointed on an ad hoe basis or as a daily—wager but it is another thing to say that he is appointed in a sanctioned post which was lying vacant upon following the due procedure presaibed therefore. 1 I. It has not been found by the Labour Court that the respondent was appointed by the appellant herein, which is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Cmstitution, upon oomplianoe with the constitutional requirements as also the provisions of the 1 972 Ad or the Rules and Regulationsframed thereunder. ’ ln the present case, the appoinhnent of the petitioner as badlidar is not in dispute. The reasoning of the Labour Court that though the petitioner was a badlidar employee, since he continued for longperiod i I i l i / Thakur g1? Le. more than seven years, the petitioner is entitled to pmper Show cause noh'ce befom the appointment was disengaged, is not in consonance with the settled position of law. A tempomty employee appointed de—horse the constitutional scheme of employment, not in accordance with law, has no right to the post. It is fmther well settled pn'nciple of law that an employee who has no right to the post has further no right to reappointment, Ieinstatement or regularization in service. in the case of Govt. of A.P. and oth&s Vs. Mohd. N Illlah Khan {(200d) 2 SCC 373}, the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the High Court exercising of judicial review under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage ofjustice or violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the Labour Court has committed serious error which has been rightly corrected by the Industrial Court by setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is not warranted to interfere with the nnd‘mgs and orders passed by the Industrial Court. As a result this petition is dismissed, summarily. ' Sd]. .Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge