•sn^r^ii Ict-li.'* ifiro^lRif •yai ^wiv\^, a)Tilyjl<i, i«iftit<3< sw^t ^Vs(iaK WHW ^ijjq)----"--"----"-^ 200 •f^re^' sii^r'B'RraT'Hftg W.lf. 1227) No.7032 of 2008 PETIT!ONER Non-applicant 1, 2. Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Applicant 2. 3, S.B Hoa'ble Shri Dhireatlra Mishra. J. 17.12.2008 dated 13.3.2008, wheneby 1 Annexure P-11 dated 26. entifled for a sitm of Rs.33 he worked as Badli Worker) ^TilT^)^ ^Wcff "^ Ts^ <fa^r( '^siPtnsii^f phhattisgarh InfrastTucture Development pdrporatioh, (Transport Section), through |its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- pilaspm- (CG) ]The Managing Director, Chliattisgarh pnfrastructtire Developiaent Corporation (Transport Section) Shastri Chowk, Raipur (CG) phriram Sahu, Son of Roopram Sahu, aged ^bout 27 years, resident 6f ViBage Amaudi, P.0. Amaudi, P.S. Sarsiwaa, Distt. Raipur (CG) (The Industrial Coilrt of CUiattisgai'h, pench at Bilaspur, fhrough its Jt. Registrar |The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, pflaspur (CG) Writ Petitioa uader Aitticle 227oftlte Coastitutioa ofladia Shri Ratan Pusty, coi|msel for the petitioners. Heard. This petition is direjcted against the onler of Aunexure P-12 :araed State Industrial Court, Bflaspur has rejected the appeal of t}ie petitioners under Section 65 of the Chliattisgarh Jndustrial I^elation Act, 1960 agaiast the orcler of p.2007 passed by learaed Labour Court, Bilaspiu-, whereby fhe resp|ondent No.l, workiaan has been held to be ,656/- towaifls wages for the period^which -1>. [4^ y<av .,<^t'-" ^ :-^^. ^a?^ 1 VSy-:'% AHC-22 '&^ ^..,.^ an^r^ii R-li'h 3I1^T ?t»*iict) <if^a s T3 -i|l''lli')'il, STil'y'ie. facii'My 3(I^?T •q^ra; 1 11*ICTI shlich"""""""""""""""""""""''??^ 200 'lq^ST' SD^I'Rgiwdfer - z of atteriidaace tiMs conctltiou att Leamed counsel for| below have arrived to a corifc was present aad discharge< period ou. fhe basis No. 1 without considering is taken ouly on fhe Respondent No. 1, workina4 to establish fhe above fact workiuan for the relevant p| After goiag fhrougN passed by leamed Labour leamed Industrial Court b^ been further confinned, it| the respondent No. 1 exainJ|Qi worked as a Badli WorkeA oath is duly corroborated fhe respondent for the re^( aUowed fhe appUcatiQn of finduig regarding fhe pres| and fhus, tliis Court is nol fact recorded bv bofh the| docuinents produced by thf The petitiou beiag d^i and is accordiagly disiniss^d CM'if[ci41T1 'RR^Tf ^ 'feT3t •(.Fil-W.K '^ariwTan^r the petitiouers subiuits both the Courts ;lusion that fhe respondent No. 1, workmaa d. his duties'as BcuSi Worker for th.e relevant register produced by the respondent fact that the sei-vices of fhe BadU Worker of abseuce of aay regular workm.an. ought to have addiiced additiorial evidence |that he worked ia the place of a particular :riod. the itapugued order of Amiexure P-11 (poiirt and order ofAnnexure P-12 passed by which fhe findiug of fhe Labour Coiirt has is observed fhat befoiie fhe Labour Court, Jned hinisetf and has stated ou oafh fhat he for fhe relevant period. His stateiuent on froni the attendance register ruauitamed by ;vant period.. Bofh fhe Courts below have |respondent No. 1 by recordiag a concurrent ;nce of respondent No.l ta fhe given date uicliued to iaterfere wifh tlie finding of fhe Courts below, which is also based on fhe ^ respondeut himsetf. kvoid of substance is liable to be disinissed at fhe admission stage itsetf. D e