HIGH CO’IJR'i‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wri Pc‘a'gian Na. 28:3 0f 20%}; PE’I‘ITIONER : Chhatijsgarh State Warehousing Corpn. Through. Manager Ganj Lim, Rainandgaon (CG) {earlier known as MP. State Warehousing Comm, for unified State of M.P.j VER8 US . Gautam Shanda: S/o Munshilai Shencie, R/o Mathparu, ‘ ward N0. , Rajnandgaon (CG). ’ (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF ”Hm CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) B: Hon‘ble atish K. Aanihotri J.) RESPONDENT Present : Shri BD. Guru, Advocate ibr the petitioner. None for the respondent. QRAL GREEK (Passed or: mm day of Aegust, 2%8) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. The petitioner impugns the award dated 05.01.2002 (Annexure P/l ), passed by the Labour Court. 3, Learned counsel appearing tor the petitioner submits that the impugned award dated 05.01.2002, passed by the Labour Coutt, is not legal and proper. The respondent was appointed with the petitioner corporation and worked with the petitioner corporation from 14.02.93 to 31.03.94. The work ot'the respondent was satisfactory. ‘r 4. The respondent by oralporder dated 31.03.94, was removed from the service. The respondent was appointed on temporary basis for coilection and storage of Tendu Patta. The services ofthe respondent was required as and when on work was available. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provisions of Section 25-1: of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194? (for short ‘the Act, 1947') is not S Mr. S applicable to the facts ofthe case; as per amended provisions of section 2 (00) ofthe Act, 1947'. Tha Labour Court, after having 6xamined all the facts, re’carded fmdings that tha petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year, and as such the petitioner was entitled to benefits under section 25-F of the Act, 1947. It was further observed that while removing the petitioner from the service, the petitioner wag not paid any retrenchment compensation or notice in advance, as required, The impugned award was signed by the Labour Court on 05.01.2002 and pronounced on 16.03.2002. I have heard learned counse} for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner preferred this petition on 26.10.02, thereafter; the matter was adjourned from time to time on the request made by the petitioner to remove the default, The default has not been removed till date. Even otherwise, on merit also, there is‘ no perversity or irreguiarity found in the impugned award. if the respondent has, proved that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year, he is entitted to benefits under the provisions of Section 25-,F ot'the Act, 1947. The award dated 05.01.2002, directing reinstatement of the respondent is just, unexceptionable and needs no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequentiy, M(W)P No. 24i/03, apptication for grant of interim rehet also stands dlsposed ot. Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihoui Judge s ib, 3y ,