^ iffan>f^(Ta(c,s,) THE affl^a.s Hisir-aroaT QS ^E* ^±£±£-^3./ a? PETlTI^Ea ®dB@slyaBa^ wlfiaosE QtthgFa Sabu aged ateut 3«years Eesldeut o£ Hasfloei* Basbl Tlflra BAlaspur TAstl sRd atstfe.Mla^ai-( C.©.)« •WS&BS i®spw_sai3S <y.^ ^J^y ^y ••y ,^^ .^6"" ,''»•' €^^- 1. St*e o£Oahsfetisgajch Ihi&ugfa s Secrefeaiy tisSsviS Bapartaeitt Mtol syEy* BI.K* s«aiavat RaAp&r (C.G. )» 2. Ms»ager»i< aareidra Psips^ BasFS. fedisbzlesl' P«t«I<fed.43-A» a»<tostElA Area Tifira aiaspur (C.G.)® 3, Iiatoar Cbnmlssi sr«i State of C&hattl.sgaA Ralpar (C»©.). BlIaSpur ItSTT PETITION BliEBB AOTX<£B 226/23f) 8? llffi C»STITBTI<W es xsBtAJiQK xsag »aB©» A 'NRtT* eWKSi Q9. B <3Ne«.,TO^SBi«?SS>rt<S_»_^a;»»^JS» de pefeifloBsrasitted atove aesit InamMy be®s te sulnit as uod®r» a«S3^ffi3 '•?s-^ ^ ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON No. 4040 of2003 GanesiyaBai. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Ofllers. WRTT PETmONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF TIffi CONSTmmON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aamhotri, J. Present: Shri Suryakant Mishra, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Shri A.V.Shndhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERfORALY (Passedon 28°'day<€October,2Q09) The petitioner impugns 1fae order dated'8 January, 2003 passed bythe Labour Court under the Industrial Dispytes Act, 1947 in case No. 23/TOA/K-111-A/2001 (Ref), onthe grounds that the thumb markon the document could have been of some ofher person and fhe Court below eommitted en-Qr in accepting the saidthumb mark put onthe document to bethethumb mark ofthe petitioner. Secondly, fhe Court below has not eonsidered fhe case oftermination offhe petitiona-. Heard leanied counsel for fhe petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The leamed Labour Court has examined all the documents as is evident from para 9 ofthe impugned order. It was found that the petitioner has accepted her dues and withdrew from service by puttmg the thumb impression on the document. No other document was produced to contradict tiie thumb impression by the petitioner. Evea tfitis assumed that the thumb impression was of some other person,rthe petitioner ^ ought not to have accepted Ifae benefits as has been done in the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner has accepted all the benefits after disengaging herselffrom the employment. Thus, there is no irregularity, infimiity in the order impugned passed by the leamed Labour Gourt, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. It is well-ni^i established that this Court in exercise of its jurisdietion under Article 227/227 offhe Constitution oflndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality orjurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. Accordingly,the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. SdA SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit