Biranchi son of Ganbat Mala?ar, aged abaut» 29 years: residegt of Daansara, Teh- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh. ~Versus; RESPOMDEMS (1) State of Madhya Pradesh through- Secretary, Department of Fore-5%,, Vallabn Bhawan, BEopal. Van—Mandal Adhikari , District— Raigarh . Van—Parikshetra Adhikari, Bhoo—Sanrakshan Parikshetra, Sarangarh , District — Raigarh . (2) (3) HIGH COURT O? JUDICATUR;: AT JABALxaUR wt,” (gt/1 #2/ ® 3 PETE‘I‘ZEON UNDER ARTICLE—226/227 CONSTE'EUTION OF INDIA. XI—HC—22 3mm mm m zoob Shri Saujay K. Agrawal, respondants 2 and 3‘ By this writ patition Lu1d6r Article 226’ ./227 of th€ ' Constitution of India the petitic ner has challenged the order of the MP. Administrative Tn’bunaldated 27—7—2000 passed in Original which the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s application holding that the applicant, being a mueter r011 labourer'his serviCaEs have been terminated under the provisione of Industxial Dispi‘tge‘s Act 1947, with one month’s notice and on payment of 28-6—2003 Shri Anjl Paudey, coun'se} for the petitioner. Daputy Advocata Gcnttral for thc Applicaiion No. 3448/2000 by retrenchment compensation and gratuity, which he has been directed to collect from the officer who has issued the termination order, that is to say from respondent > No.3, the Range. Officer We have heaxd the learned counsel for the petitionef and the leained counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. the. petitioner submitted that the The learned counsel for petitioner was a regular employee and he, While drawing our attention towards Anemone-P] 4 argued that the petitioner was a regular employee. But the» perusal of this document reveals that the petitioner was not a regular employee. It shows that from 16th October. 1988 to 15th December 1988 he was not on the muster roll. Similarly, from 16th January 1989 till the last day of the Apn‘l 1989 he was not on the muster roll and this order itself shows that the petitioner was a muster ro‘ll labourer. The petitioner has not / . ,// i b6en able to produce any document whic shows that he was regular employee. In View of the above, we c o not iind any force in this petition and also we. do not find that the Tribunal has committed anv illegality or irregularity in passii 1g the impugned order, a$ such the petition is without any subetaxu er and the Same ie dismissed. \Io. 1353/2003 stands disposed of. In View of this order, LA. JL {ink Sdl- Chief Justice I ‘ / i‘ / sw— L.C.BHAUOO Judge \ > new h k