i, '•'•'.•"•"r]i"""']rf^a l^^i^^^^^^^^^^ '^^''^iS-.'^'' ••:'"' '^ -^^"-^•sssws^sys&Wi ,-i^\j</-wV^"' %'^:'iK5'-i<-&-a/^<i-t'C'S i it75^ 1N_'%B__HI(3H QOVKT OF JITBIGATUKE AT JAB&LPETR •W.P. N0. ^^^f /2000 PETITIONER Krishi (Jpaj Mandi samiti,i Through : secretayy," Krishi upaj Mandi Samitl, Khairagarb , Distt. Rajnandgaon(24P) (A Body ineorporated under Krishi Ugaj Mandi Adhiniyara 1972} , Versus RBSPONDSm'S s 1. Manoj soni, S/o Late shrl Bheeku i,al soni aged 41 years* 2» Kadlr Qareshi S/0 Nahic Qureshi, aged 41 'years, 3. Ravi Namdeo, R/0 Sharvan Rumar Namc3eo, aged 33 years, Desi.gnation - All tbree are AssttoSub Inspeetor, (Nakeaar) Krisbi upaj Mandi samiti, Khairagarh, A11 R/3 ,- Khalragach,' Distt. Rajnandgaon (M.P«) 2a£T_PET?'ION CTIDSR ARTiei,ES 226/227 OP THE eONSTITOTION O? IHDIA. i^- ^ ![1 ;.:'!!>•] iii»)S1 XI-HC-22 -s^ ?. ^-frOTs, •feiray ^l.P- MO^.,26 !00<?> ^.\ t^Ti^ Sii^^l 'iFWTW?^ __J ^!^^.A.«IL.. t®RB.tg{E|!;a,,^ ^. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, cdiunsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Manhidra Shrivastav^, couiisel for fhe respondents. Heard. i 1 Since the subject niatter iAvolved ia these fourwrit petitions is fhe same, on fhe prayer of the fearued counsel for the parties fhey are beiag heard analogously aad (lisposed of by fhis conunon order. Admittedly, some of fhe ei4.ployees - respondents of tlie Krishi Upaj Maudi Satnitte, Khau-agarh Distt. Rajnaudgaon had approached fhe Labour Court, Rajnaadgaon fpr regularization of fheir services on different posts under the petitiorier Maadi. On aa appUcation beiaj inade, fhe order, which was padsed, in the lueautime was stayed. Aggrieved therewith. the petitione^s came up before this Court. On 11-7-2001 wlule issuing notice. this Court had directed that fhe procceditigs pending befoie fhc Labour Court niay contuiue but final order shall not be passed until ^urther ord^rs. It is stated by the leamed counsel for fhe petition.4r that evidence on belialf of the parties has been recorded by the Latoour Court but fiirfher proceedings reniaia stayed ia view of fhe io.terini order passed by this j Court. Accordingly, prayer is inade that fhese petitions laay be l';[<^' ^^ ^f'[v»iittS s XI-HC-22"; ^Nrai^,l'®:(ffiaTi's,'' iTHy ^^'^6^.. '^ 37F^T^iI f^RTStrS?! ^"Rt^"?rf?^ sn^i-FRiiWHfet -^- pendiug before it on inerit. It cb|i|["l<fl.< TV^ s. fey> tS^y- ^ari^tfiisft^l fllsposed ot by directing thc La^iour Court to dispose of tlic xnatter is also brought to the notice of the Court by leamed couiisel for fh^ petifioner fhat soine eBiployees had direcfly approached fhis Court Uy way ofW.P.No,503/2000 claimiag similar relief in. which certaia dijrections ^vere issued. HonTever, these are fhe factors, which are lequu'ied to be taken iD.to consideration by the Labour Court while adjudipating fhe clauii of fhe applicaiits thereiu. [u view of the above inattep, these writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 2664/2000,2262/2000,2668/2D00 & 2669/2000 are disposed ofby i directilig the Labour Court to d'is|pose of the luatter pending before it on its own merit aad ia accordatice with law and after affordiug au opportualty of hearing to fhe re^pective parties. wittun a reasonable tuae. 'b^.A. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge