HjGHCQyRT OF CHHATriSGARH: BILASPUR Petltioner State of Chhattisgarh, through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, D'vision Durg, District Dui? (CG}. Versus ^ Respondents 1) Dinesh, aged about (not known) S/o. Anandram, R/o. Village Potiyakala, Police Station Durg, District Duig, Chhattisgarh. 2) Bisram, aged about (not known) S/o. Mahatarau, R/o. Village Achuti, Police Station Nandni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3) Dhannu, aged about (not known) S/o. Ramdayal, R/o. Village Murmurda, Potice Station Nandni, Distriot Duro, Chhattisgarh. 4) Ramratan, aged about (not known), S/o. Latelu Sahu, R/o. Village Murmuda, Police Station Nandni, Distriot Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Durg, District Dum (03). 0,'Vrit Petition under Article 226/227 of the ConsSitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Safish K. Agnihotri, 4. Shri Atok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the pstitioner/State. (Passed on 12-3-2008) By this petition, the petitioner/State chailenges the vaiidity of the order dated 31-8-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by Labour Court, Durg, in Case No. 6/!.D. AcV2004 (Reference), whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondents No. 1 to 4 without baok wages. 2) "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/State submfts that the respondents were appointed on daily wage basis, as such they have no right to the post in the iight of well settied principle of law that appointmert of t'ne respondents dehors rule and constitutionai scheme of employment, does not confer any right on ^ ai :!^ ^ 'y/ -'y w -2- the empioyee to continue, reinstatement or regularization. Learned eounsel njrther submits that though it is a case of retrenohment but the respondents are not entitled to benefit of re-instatement. 3) I have heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evidert that non-applicant witness G.R. Rawate in his deposition in paraaraph 4, has cleariy stated that the scrutiny for reiaining the daily wage employees on regular establishment pureuant to the order dated 31-12-88 was not done. The decision against the respondents No. 1 to 4 was taken without any sonjtiny, contrary to the direction of the State Government. Approac'n of the Labour Court in appreciating the swdence and applylng proper provisions of law to the case are unexceptional. 4) It is well settied principie of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest anc! apparent error on t'ne face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of iaw or there is grave failure of injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this court cannot aiso entertain the.petition in its superi/isory jurisdtetion ifthere is pen/ersity, irregularity or iliegality in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 5) Appiying ihe above settied prinoiples of law to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant an irterference wlth the decision passed by the Court below. 6) Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdi- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raiu