^(^i^ ^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wr.it Petition (S) No. 201 of2008 PE'nTIONER ^ RESPONDENTS ^" -4- Geiid Lal Sahu, S/o Lakiian Lal Sahu, aged 60 yrs. President Clihattisgarh Parivahaii Kai'machari Sangli, Rajsiandgaon, Sanjay Nagar, Rajiiandgaoii (Chliattisgarii). VERSUS 1. Managing Director, RajnandgaoiL Roadways Private Limited, Rajnandgaon (CMiattisgarh). 2. Managiiig Director, SM Preetaam Singli Garcha, Kaiiker Roadways., Head Office Gandlii Udyan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. President Officer, Labour Court, Rajiiandgaon (Clihattisgarh). 4. Labour Comiiiissioner, Raipur (Cliiiattisgarh). 5. State of Cliliattisgarh thi'ougii Secretaiy Labour Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chliattisgarh). 6. Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 7. Collector, Rajnaiidgaon, District Rajnandgaon (ClAattisgarii). (WMT PE'IITION UNDER .WTICLE 227 OF THE CON'STITUTION OF JNDIA) (SB:_iK>n.t:ble Mr. Satish K. Aamhotri, J.)_ Present : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amn Sao, Govt. Advocatc fbr the State. 1. ORALORDER (Passed en 28ffi'd^1)fFetouary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, tlie matter is taken up for hearing finally. Leamed counsel appeariiig for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of Clihattisgarh Parivahan Kamiachari Sangh, filed a case before the Labour Court on be.half of the members of the union statiiig ^\ -T tliat the respondeiit No. 1 has not granted the benefits to the meiiibers of the union, in accordance with the rules. The saiiie was decided by award dated 23.12.2002 (Aimexiire P/2) in favour ofthe unioii and directed the employer to reinstate the members of the unioai with all consequential benefits within a period of90 days. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner farther submits that the employer has not complied with the award passed by tlie Labour Court in its letter and spirit, for which the union moved an application before the Labour Court for issuance of Revenue Recovety Certificate (RRC) on 04.06.2003. On the said application siotices were issued to the employer. In spite frantic eflbrts made by the imion. the award has not been compiled with fbr which the union prefeiTed a petition being W.P. No. 3371//2004. Iii the meantime, the employer filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award, which was allowed by order dated 12.05.2006 (Amexure P/10). The reference ofthe union has been dismissed by award dated 31.01.2007 (.'Wiexure P/ll). Thereafter, the petition filed by the union before this court has beeii dismissed as having become infmctuous by order dated 11J2.2007 (Aimexure P/12). Leamed counsel also submits that the Labour Court, without giving any sufficient and cogesit reasons, set aside the award dated 23.12.2002 after lapse offour yeai's, which is not at all sustainable in the eye oflaw. I have heard learned counsel appearing fbr the parties, perused the pleadings and dociuBents appended thereto. The witnesses of the petitioner uiiioii made a statement before the Labour Court that they are the employees ofthe respondent No. 1 and they have never worked with the residerit No. 2 herein. They lurther made a statement tliat the pemiits of the buses can be transfen'ed but the employees cannot be traiisferred. Q^ Sahu The Labour Court observed that the petitioner umon failed to prove that aloiig with the transfer of bus pennit the employees can be transfen'ed and imder this circumstance the niembers of the petitioner union are not entitled to any reliefasid accordingly dismissed tlie case ofthe petitioner by award dated 31.01/2007 C^miexure P/ll). Thus, the impugiied award is unexceptioiial, just, proper and needs sio interference. 4. It is well-mgh settled principle of law that this Court, iii exercise of its supen'ison/ jurisdiction under .Ailicle 227 of the Constitutiosi of India, should retram itself from interferisig with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where pen7ersity, illegality, in-egularity or . jurisdictional en'or is writ large on the face ofthe record, ^diich is not in the present case. 5. Accordmgly, tiie petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. 6. Consequently, pending applications, ifasiy, stasid disposed of SATISHK:AGWHO'rei Judge