^;? i"^ "'i 5"E> Er^ ^<1'1 ^ d^ y ^ 'i.d' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD1CATURE AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. ^ OF 2006 APPLICANT ./A^TV .'^1' {/^"' >ss>'"' .&i:'" y ^" 'J.^ .c*' t^y./ y</'y RESPONDENTS / 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board Raipur, Chhattisgarh (A body corporate under the provisions Of Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam) Through Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Deputy Secretary, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS /, Presiding Officer 'S.Labour Court (Under Industrial Disputes Act) Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh /I. President, Krishi Upaj Mandi Karmchari Sangh, Branch Khairagarh Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh /3. Bharsadhak Officer, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khairagarh, Disfrict Rajnandgaon 4. Ramkrishan Sinha S/o Purshottamlal Sinha, Aged about,32 years, R/o Amlipara, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh *5. Komalendra Singh, S/o Matak Singh, Aged about 41 years, R/o Baret Para Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh -6. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon APPLICATION FOR REVIEW^IF^THE^JOINT ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE^ HIGH COURT^ (HON'BLE . JUSTICE SHRI S.K.AGNIHOTRI) DATED 27/07/2006 IN WRIT PETITION N0. 1379/2003. L HICBB COURT <W JUDICATURB CaiHATTOBaAKUi BUAWUR •'». Sta^te Bench: Hon'bte StoiSAish K. Agriliotri, J. Revlew PeUUon Bo. 21 of20C» KN»»lrtf<p^<WW*f*^»»^J»^^»»*»<»W^»N*l (Review soughtforfhe oiderdt. 27.7.2006 inW.P.No. 1379/2003) Petitioner : Chliattisgarh Rajya Kriishi Vipanaa Boatd, Raipur & anofhcr Versus Respondents : PresMlmg Offfcer, Labour Court & ofhers Rev*«wP^ttton »o.28 »t2006 (Review sought for the order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1404/2003) Petjtioner : r'Tihattisgnrh Rajya Krishi Wpanan Boari, Raipur & anolbcr Veraus Respoiidents ; Presidu^ Ofi&wr, Labour Court & othcrs Review P^ttlon Ho. 89 of 2006 (Review sought for fhe order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1403/2003) Ptetitfoner ; Chhatdsgarh Rqya Krishi Vipanan Doard, Raipur & anotfacr Versus Respondents : Presidmg Officer, LE&OUT Court & ofhers Rwiew Petttton Mto. 24 of2<X» (Review sought for the order dt 27.7.2006 in W.P.No. 1402/2003) Petitioner : Chliatti^^rh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Raipur & aaothcr Veraus Respondents : Presiding Offiteer, Labour Court & othecs Shn Ranbir Su^h Marhas, Advocate for fhe review petitioners. Shri Ainit Verma for thc 'respoiident No.2. ORDBR ( P«u»edon tbte 13th day ®fDecember»2<W6( 1. The preseat applications fifed by fhe Chhattisgarh Ks^ya. Krishl Vipanan Board, Raipur and its Deputy Secretary, seete a review of the order datE-d 27tt» >Jnly, 2006 passacd by this Conrt in W.P.No.s 1379/2003, 1404/2003, 1403/W(»and l402/'W03 ", 'i. on fhe ground (hat fhey were not impleMed as party before the Labour Court as weU as befbre fhis Court. 2. Wifh the consent ofthe pardes, fhe aaatter fe beaid. finalfy and afl. tfae fbur Review Pstitioa No.s 21, 28, 29 and 24 <rf 2006, are being disposed of by this common oider, as Qusy ha»ebeen filed against tlie. common onler dt. 27ttl Jiity, 3^06 paasaed by tfais Court and fhe poiats raised and groimds urgied in fhe revicw petitioners are one and the same. 3. The review petitk>ners would submit that fhere ane certam Rules whfch are applicable to fhe employees involved in fhc present cases, but ultimately fhe decision passed by this Court inay not be altered in view of the fact fhat fhe employees were not appointed in accordance wifh the constituttonat acheme. 4. Be fhat s^ it may, fhe necessary unpteadment stould hawe been made before the Labour Coiut. The Labour Court had passcd the oider afier consideriaig retevant pleaduqis aiad documente placed on recoid. This Court, in its jurisdictton under Articte 226 of fhe Constitution of India bas considered fhe entire case on facts as weU as on ttie aspect of pxoceduBal irreguladty, mfirmily and iUegality ia the oider passed by fhe Labour Court and the matter was accordit^ty dfamissed. 5. In view of the foregomg, the proper case is aot made out &r reviewiag fhe order in accordance wifh the icquiTements for review of an order as per law. The Review Petition No.s 21, 28, 29 aod 24 of 2006 are accordmgty disinisscd. No oider as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur <s