IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritADpealNo. 3^/2007 ^ ^^ APPELLANT: Jl^ [f^kOfAJ^Mi ^VO-3 S.^YI^^^^ ....•"' .•••^ ^%%- ^"^^^" ,,,,:^"^^'"(" ^' ^^•'" ^' RESPONDENTS: ^ ^ ^ Shri Kundan S/o.- Shri Duria Aged about 50 years, Ex-BSP NMR Employee, Quet. No. 30D, Sector 9 Bhilai Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Steel Authority of India Ltd. Through Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ ^C^.PO.^ ^.,; / 2) Member Jud9e lndustiral court ^v^f A/16 Krishna Sadaan Shanker <^^ Nagar,Raipur(C.G.) ^G^-^POMPC-^T MC.^) ^3) Presiding Officer, Labour Court ^^ .._-.„ Durg(C.G.) ^rF^L^Pb^l^H-r&N^O) OFT^R^H 60URT Of CHt^WK^^M ^^^^, To Dfi^r^-oN BeN(LH^CT-?oz)^ -Rfe-ApwrTH (^~ ^^ WRIT APPEAL UNDER RULE 157MOt QF THE HIGH COURT ^^4^ RULES2005. T ^o HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH; AT BIU^PVT Division 8€hch: Hop(t>le ShriI.M.Quddusi A (•ain'ble Shri Prashant ICunwr Mishra. JJ. Writ ApD®atNo.95 OF 2007 ADoellant Respondents Vs Shri Kundan Steel Authority of India Ltd. <& pthers Present: Mr. Anup Mazumclar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the responclents. OKAL JUD6MENT (Passed on 30th March. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J;- 1. Heard. 2. This writ appeal is dtrecteddgainst the jmpugned order dated 15th December, 2006 passed by th®learned Single Judge in W.P. No.59/2003. 3. Writ petition was filed by the resppndent-Steel AMthority of India Ltd. challenging the or4er dated 28.11499<5> pflsse<3l l?y the Labour Court, t>urg and order dlated 10.7.2002 pQSsedby the Industrial Court/ Bench at Raipur. 4. Writ appellant is clamin9 re-employment ynd^r Sectjori 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Oisputes Act, 1947, which is reproduced herein below:- "25-H.Rc-eniploynient ,of r<tF#i!ich<»'d wopltincn.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and th<? ftiiiipj^y^r proposes to take into hjs ernploy any per$on^, he shall, in such mQnner as moy be pr^sc^b^d^ QWC an opportunity (to the retrenched workm^n who are citjzens of India to offer thjemselves for re- empjoyn'ient, and such retrenched wor^en) who •^\ -2.- offer thems^lves for re-employment $hal| hjciv® preference over other persons." 6. For the purpose of calljng a person under re-employment, j^ necessary that he shoyldbc palled jn accordQnce w|th seiijprjty which is to be majntained as per provisions of ftyle 77 of the Industrial Djsputesftute$,1957,whjchread;s as under:- "77. Maintenance of seniority list of workinen.- The employer shall prepare a list pf all workmen in the particular category from whjch retren<;hment is contemplated, arrwged ^c^ their service in that category and jeause o copy thereof to be posted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premjses of the inclustrial establjshment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment." 7. The writ appellant ha^ nowhere urged that the .similarly circumstanced junior was called for employment and thj^r^fore, there is no question of any discrimjnatjon. 8. During the cours!? of Qrgunients, t^arned coyn^ej for the writ appellant has submitted that fhiB writflippellant has attained the a9®of superannuatjon but hjsintentjon js to claim cQmpensatioin which was not the sybject matter of the jndystrial dlspyte. Learned Single Jydge has alsp pbservjed that the Labour Court has not recorded a clear findjng that the wfit app!?Uant had worked for more than 240 days. 9. Considerjng the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no 9ocd ground to interfere in the impugned order rather there is no infirmjty pr jllegality in the tmpygned order which we uphojd- 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge .zpCJt^/^