fc...-^ ,.--'C'Ai>'s" ^ss^^ [^^o>^111' ,..•**' ../-""^T'V^"" ^^^" ^•-" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. /^^/2006 :^^. 3 3^i S S ul s-'-. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ,WC'Sart'^"P"s.'BI!as!>ur(G-6-) Vijay Prata^ Singh S/o Shri Pawan Sai, aged about 43 years, S.E.C.L. Employee, R/o village and Post Pandavapara Colliery, District Korea [C.G.] VERSUS Union of India, Through- The Principal Secretaiy of Ministiy of Coal, New Delhi. Chief General Manager, Soyth Eastern Coal fields Limited [SECL] Seepat Road, Bilaspur [C.G.]. (2) (-' (3) Chief General Manager SECL, Baikunthpur, District Korea [C.G.]. (4j, Sub Area Manager, SECL Jhilmili, Sub Area- Pandavapara Colliery, District Korea [C.G.]. 1^ ,! . PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r°XI-HC-22 's^i -fwiv',<i, ^Tfly'is, 'f^ray an^t^l Ki-ii'* an^r sFqNr'gfei WHplTWWa?..iAf....l.'!.sy.i'o<. 24.4,2006 AdvocbTe .4|d &hri J.K. 5hastri, Shri S.K. Beriwai, Sr. respondent No.l. &r. hi.K. Shukb, 5r. directed to take notice on isehijt Hscrd. The petitioner's ease i^ Pieee Rated Worker fl-oader) Specia! Pisce Ratsd a'iowaice wagss at the above rate upto iS been chanaed from Pieee Rate montti of February. 1998. TTil the change of his category bsnefitof pay pro-tection, sntitied for ths same and in representations to the respor^ the same. Lfiamed counsei for pr-cvjsions of SsctioR 33 of| r'emedy is Gvaibble'tb the pe'] 'wfeft3 WRif •?'feEst'rfsptsre iTSlPtfq 311^1 for The petitioner. Pflnel Counset takes notice on beha!f of fvocsts wth Shri Sun'i Mersa, Advocats If of respondsnts Nio-2 to 4. •Aat he was appointed on 22.6.1995 as |»tthe rate 6f Rs.88.93 poise per day wtth Jof Rs.4.24 passe. The petitioner was qwen 31.1.1998 and thereafter his cate9ory has ifci Woi'ker to Time ftated Worker from the TTi^ grievance of •fhe petitioner is that after •^ie respondentsare not providing him the wh4"eas, as pe" ci"cular dctsd 17.2.1995 he is •t^ils r^gard, •ihe pejitioner has made sev'ei'a! ;or|dent but they are not paying any heed to the. petitioner submitted that as per the Industrial Oisputes Act siterncTive itioner, but he prcyed l+ia-i- -H-ie petitiorier r XI-HC-22 311^!'^ R-ii.i* StI^I sP-fl^-'yf^T 'rid Roshan/- 1'-, ^^T ^•Si <-II*IMI sKlIiqi ailtgwnWHft^ mdy i!?es"dir<ected to make a d ;;a^^"p'!;.^^;-' No.3 twd in Turn responden' colinsel df rsprasentgtion in accordance w| Havina heard iearned the facts and circumsl'Gnces for -the petitioner appears to the petitioner' is aliowed 1ji respondentNo.3 withiri te" da^ is directed to decide 1+ie repr^ with low wi-Hiin a oeriod of thrte representatio", Wtth the direction aforeja] Certifisd copyas pe" rui^s i^tailed representation before respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the Ifth iaw. , for the parties anci having regurd to •tf'.e Cisse; the request made by counseS be Just, fair and reasonable; therefore, )o make a detaiied representation to |'s froffl Todsy ond in lurn respondent No.3 ssentation of the petitioner in accorciance months from t+ie ciate of peceipt of the qffqRpitTWRif 4,1^'zi ^RSR •^3iPOT3fl^?T thrte for^aiid, the petition stands disposed of- 51 L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fi^t