; BEFOjiE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 SaBi WRITPETLTION NQ^ //^-'2-:/2Q06 PETITIONER RESPONDENTSi^ <^y /^y »^-' ^ ^^> ^•^'y-" ^ The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Divisional Forest Officer (General), Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. Kalyan Singh Sahu, son of Shri Parasram Sahu, resident of village and post Devpur, Tah. Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Presiding Officer, under the Industrial Dispute Act, Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) R[T PETITION U/A. 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA s'"! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1142 of 2006 Petitioner Versus Respondents The State of Chliattisgarh Kalyan Singh Sahu and another Sin^le Bench: Hon'bk Mr. Justicc Satish K. Agnihotri. ShriA.S. Kachliawaha, Govenunent Advocate for the petitioner. None for fhe respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER (25A March, 2006) The respoudeut No. l was appointed on 15.6.1988 as daily wages workcr and was workmg as Chowkidar. The services of fhe respondent No. 1 was discontiaued by ordcr dated 23.5.2001. Beiag a^rieved, fhe dispute was raised before the Dcpuly Labour Cominissioner, Raipur. The Dcpuly Labour Comnussioner by order dated 23.3.2002 referred fhe inatter to the Labour Court, Raipur under Section 10 offhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the foUowing quesUon :- "Whether the termiuation of fhe servicea in respect of Shri Kalyan Sahu is legal aad proper? If, not, what relief, he is entifled for and what directfons can be given to fhe nou- applicant ui this regard? The Labour Court, after haviag examined aU documents and after hearing bofh the parties and came to fhc conclusion fhat no legal proceedings were foUowed before ttie.tennination ofthe services offhc respondent No. 1. ~ / 6. Accordingly, the Labour Court, by order dated 14.7,2004 (Annexure P/l) passed the award, directuig reinstatenient of fhe services wifhin a period oftwo months wifh 29% back wages. On queiy, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner is not to position to point out as to what is fhe perversily or infirmity in the iiupugned order. I have goae through the impugned order aad I have not fisund any perversity. The order is based on sufficient evidence, after applying proper law. Interference with the iinpugned order is not caUed in exercise of extraDrduiaiy jiirisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. For fhe reasons stated above, the petition is disnussed wifh costs. The costs is quantified at Rs. IdQQ/-^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu