-o 3i ^T Ly'S^^f . i>'-rte //^e/voa^ ^B^t^^^ t^tp/ ft.wA.R.^ y -BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fUNO. ^L^^ /2008 Gendu, S/o.- Heeradas Satnami, aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Khamariyakhurd, Police Station & Tahsil Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2) Branch Manager, State Ware Housing Corporation, Branch Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3) District Manager, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ";;'^.\ p3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (L) N0.1145 OF 2008 PETITIONER Gendu RESPONDENTS Versus Presiding Officer & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:~ Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 10th day of March, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 12-10-2007 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, in Case No.23/ID/2006 (Ref.), wherein the claim of the petitioner/employee has been rejected. 2, Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioner is working as Hamal in the Chhattisgarh State Warehouse Corporation, Branch Khairagarh, District--Rajnandgaon (for short ."the Corporation") since iast 20 years. On account of itl health of the petitioner, the petitioner couid not perform his duties for a period of about two years. hlowever, after recovering from health problem, the petitioner joined his duties. Ail of a sudden after a period of two months, one Mohan Mukaddam asked the petitioner not to come to work. The petitioner informed the said action to the Manager of the Corporation, but the same did not yield any result in favour of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner raised dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, who, in turn, referred the matter to the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon to consider the issue asto whether the termination of the services of the k. .^^;..'- ^^sy' '59 Arun Gowri petitioner was iltegal and, if yes, what consequential benefits the petitioner is entitled to. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court and prayed for reinstatement with back wages. TheCorporation denied the claim of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner was not its emptoyee at any point of time. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner in an illegat and arbitrary manner without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is working in the Corporation since last 20 years. Thus, this petition. On perusal of the impugned award as well as other documents annexed thereto, it is found that the Labour Court after having examined the facts, as produced by the Corporation, rightly held that the petitioner was engaged by a transporter for Hamati work not on regular basis, but his services utilized, as and when he was required for the work of loading and unloading. The petitioner had not produced any document including the appointment order to establish his claim that he has been working in the Corporation on daily wages basis. Thus, the findings recorded by the Labour Court and thereafter, award passed, thereon, does not warrant any interference. The impugned award isjustand proper. Accordingly, the writpetition, being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ———— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge