-u. IN THS HIGH.COUKD O®JUDZCATUBB AT .JABM.PXJS W.P.NO. (^•zh^ /98 PETITIONE^S . s State. of Madhy,a Pradesh, through •D^^O^f General^ . Porest Bivision^ • Kanlcer^ Bistt» .Bastar* ' , . -Versus- BSSPOEDENTS .s 1 ·Gay.atri Shrivastava, D/o Shri Durga Prgis.ad Shriv^stava, worki.^ig in, the 0/0' S'orest' 'Extention, Office^ .. Norfch Raipur Dn<» ' • . • ' ; • 2 ^Fresiding Of fi'cer^ ^abour; Cfourt^ • 'Maiptxy^. . . • '." .• ; PETITION UHDER. ASI'ICI.E 226/227 .0?TBS GONSTiroTZOM GF II-©IA< HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTI8GARH: BILASPUR Siag^e Beach: Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 675 of 1998 Petitioner : Versus Respondeuts StateofM.P. Gayatd Shrivastava & aaofher Shri SushU Dubey, Goveramient Advocate for tihie petitioner. None for fhe rcspondents. ORAL ORDBR (20th July, 2006) 1. The petitioner raised a dispute before the State Govemment. The Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court issued notice and granted several opportunities to the petitioner. Despite notice and opportunities, the Petitioner/State failed to appear before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of records and statement of claim, came to conclusion that the respondent No.1 has proved that she had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year and the termination of service was not in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as no retrenchment compensation was paid to her. The Labour Court, accordingly, by award dated 29.8.1997 (Annexure P-1) directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with 50% backwages. The petitioner has fUed this petition, impugnmg fhe award dated 29.8.1997 (Aimexure P-1) on fhe ground that the petitioner was not given sufiBcient opportunity. On perusal of fhe case, it is found fhat sufficient opportunity has been afforded to £he petitioner. Notwithstandiag, fhe fact that sufficient opportunity was afforded, the petitioner fatled to appear before the Laboiir Court. There is no chaUenge on any ofher ground. It appears fhat fhe petitioner has also not comipUed wifh the Provisions of Section 17-B of fhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tiU date. It is weU setfled pnnciple of law fhat fhe scope of the iaterference in exercise of power under fhe Ardcle 227 of flie Constitution of India is liinited. The High Court can interfere wifh fhe award only in such cases, where fhe order is passed on fhe basis of no evidence, siiffex^ finomi patent illegalily or iafirmity. It is not the case in fhe present case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed wifh a direction fhat fhe State will take steps to coiaply wifh titie award dated 29.8.1997 (Annexure P-1), wifhin a period of one inonth from fhe date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^e^^