;!'",..&. ''aa, ' .r''"% "i 'teSSS^ !3 '^S&'&sSsk S dfc HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 163 of 2010 APPELLANT: Respondent No. 1 RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pradeep Sengupta, G-6, B.T.J. Colony, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versus M/s Jayaswal NECO Limited, Steel Plant Division, Siltara, Raipur (CG) M.P. Singh, General Manager (Iron), Jayaswal NECO Limited, Siltara, Raipur (CG) P.K. Bose, Manager, E-72, Renu Power, Bidla Colony, Renu Sagar, District Sonbhadra (UP) Ramesh Jaiswal, Director, Jayaswal NECQ Limited, Siltara, Raipur (CG) Labour Court, Raipur (CG) Industrial Court, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Pradeep Sengupta, appellant in person. Shri P.S. Koshy with Shri Ajay Pal Singh, counsel for respondents No.l, 2 and4. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra KIishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUD G M E N_T (11-1-2011) 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed in Writ Petidon No. 183 of 2004 whereby learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners issued certain directions to the Labour Court contained in paragraph-19 of .the impugned order. 2. Appellant in person would argue that the aforesaid directions have been issued to the Labour Court. Learned Single Judge has not considered the orders passed by the Industrial Court dated 16-8-2007 (Annexure- K/5) and 9th March 2009 (Annexure-K/6) whereby the Industa-ial Court ',-6e~%.,' ftl^' \ l's^l 1 ^&:y ^ allowing the misc. appeal of the appellant herein has set aside the order dated 26-9-2008 and consequently, deleted the additional issue No.6 framed on 24-4-2008 and directed the Labour Court to decide other issues on merits. Since additional issue No.6 - whether the applicant does not come within the definition of an eniployee as defined under Section 2 (13) of the C.G. Industrial Reladons Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act of 1960'), has already been deleted by the Industrial Court vide order dated 9-3-2009, no such directions could be issued to the Labour Court to exainine the nature of work of respondent No.l in the light of provisions of Secdon 2 (13) of the Act of 1960 before passing the final order and consider the case on merits thereafter. The respondents have not challenged the order of Annexure-K/6 passed by the Industa-ial Court and as such, the saine has attained the finality and, therefore, learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing the impugned directions. 3. On the other hand, Shri PS Koshy, learned counsel for the respondents/ employer submits that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court vide order dated 3-3-2003 allowed the application under Section 84 of the Act of 1960 and prima facie held that the work of the appellant does not fall within Managerial Supervisor category and Workmen category and allowed 50% of the salary as subsistence allowance. The respondents employer assailed the above order before the Industrial Court and the same was dismissed by the Industrial Court vide order dated 19-11- 2003 ofAnnexure-P/9. The writ petition filed by the respondents against the above orders of the forums below has been further dismissed by the Honlale High Court, however, sirice the matter was still pending before the Labour Court, only directions have been issued to examine whether the nature of work of the appellant in the light of the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the Act of 1960. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Industrial Court has deleted the additional issue No.6 framed by the Labour Court without examining the nature of work of the appellant. In these circumstances, the respondents/employer can. approach the Labour Court and pray for reframe of the above issue and decide the same in the light of the Qbservations inade in paragraph-19 of the impugned order. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Industrial Court vide order dated 9th March, 2009 (Annexure-K/6) has set aside the order dated 26-9-2008 passed by the Labour Court and consequently, deleted the additional issue No.6 framed on 24-4-2008 ahd thus, there is no issue before the Labour Court with regard to the nature of the work of respondent No.l/appellant herein in the Ught of the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the Act of 1960. There is specific pleading by the appellant in his return which is also supported by the documents and in the impugned order, there is no reference to the aforesaid pleading and the documents filed by the appellant. 6. Thus, in our considered opinion, the directions contained in paragraph- 19 of the impugned order could not be issued to the Labour Court. The only remedy that was available to the respondents/employer was to challenge the order of the Industrial Court dated 9-3-2009. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the directions contained in paragraph-19 of the impugned order inade by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the saine are deleted. . Barve Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge