^01 f>^"$^y^..-^" -s-'"" ^--^^••^' L.-"' ^ ^^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPVR Kfi=a ^,?j PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS : "^^to^^ WK^^gK£H •, iA^.'S^licitor_Gwe^o^n^ ' CTHAfn'SGARH'H^H^R^ g!i"sreBurt can">us'Eilasl>ur li"u'f W.P. N0. f9S'3 /2006 Bijendra Lal S/o Shri Sukh Lal, aged about 35 years, S.E.C.L. Employee, R/o village and Post Pandavapara Colliery, District Korea VERSUS ^-(1) Union of India, Through- The Principal Secretary of Ministry of Coal, New Delhi. ^-{2} Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal fields Limited [SECL] Seepat Road, Bilaspur [C.G.]. --(3) Chief General Manager SECL, Baikunthpur, District Korea [C.G.J. /{4) Sub Area Manager, SECL Jhilmili, Sub Area- Pandavapara Colliery, District Korea [C.G.]. PETITION UNDER ARTIGLB 226 /227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 -ys( ^M[viii, 'SrflWT?, [aK'll'yy SD^C^iT 'f^Nsn^i s^^ic^ ^{?^i y .^.P..&.:..^.Q.. w"""""""""":' 3II^I^RIWHf?d 24.4.2006 Shri J.K. Shastri, Advoeatt Shri S.K. Ber'wa!, Sr. fdf respondent No.i. Or. N.K. Shukic, 5r. Adv|ocate directed to take notice on behalfl Heard. The peritioner's case is Piece Rated Worker (Loader) st\ Specla! Piece Sated aiiowance ofl wagss at the above rat®upto 31 oean chsinged from Piace Rflted monthof Fsbruary, 1998. The the chasnvs ot his catetior,' thel benefit of pay protection, wher^as sntj+fa^ for •f^g same cuid 'n 'th*^ representatioris to the responde|nt: the same. Learned counsel for tH 'provisions of Seetion 33 of remedy 's iaya'iable to the petit i may be ciirected to mcke a de+ WlfeRH -qP^' •? fttSt.-^RZR i; srfigt! STI^I for The petitioner. Lnsl Counsel takes notic« on behaif of with Shri 5unii Mersa, Advocate |of restt»ondent3No.2 to 4. that he was cppointed on 30.9.1995 os the rate of Rs.88.93 paise per day with fts.Z.lZ psise. The petitioner was uiven 01.1998 and 1+i.eredftcr his eategor/ has Worker' to Time Rated Worker from the ;,"!svasnce of The oetilionsr is that afte" rsspondsnts are not providing him the s, as percircuiap dated 17.2.1995 heis rsgard, ths petitioner has 'made seysra! ^nts but they are not paying any heed to the e pe+i+ioner submitted thcat as Oer Industriai Oisputes Act alternative oner, but he prayed -that ths petitioner •aiied repr'esentation before respondent [^^fa?t \ XI-HC-22 'S'ar.'^fPTRTq, »fl!<-!<!<?, feiRTy '^& SD^ItBI 'f?:)i?7,3Ig?T ww^'-gfid ftoshan/- -c* sn^iTOrare-Hftg flfRl^f-T ^TRcn T[ J^l^ •0 '^SlfeTSiT^ No.3 and in tum respond^it No.3 may be directed to decide the representation in aecordanee|«ith low. Haying heard iearned •i+ie facts and circumstancesl tor The petitiorier Gppeasrs the petitloner ~is altowed wspondent No.3 within ten is directed To decide The re' ounsal for the parties and having regurd to of the sase, the request made by counset •o be just, fajr'and reGSoriabie.therefore, to make a detailed representation to iays from today and in turn respondent No.3 i"sse"tation of ths pel'itionsr' in accordcnce with law within a oeriod of thre®months from thedate of r-eceiDt of •Hie representation. With th®dire.etion af4r«saiel,the petition stands di^osed of. Certifiedcbpy as per ^ufes. L.C.Bhadoo Judge