§¢ %§aa . OURT FEES EXEMPTED, BY NOTiFlCATiOM NO 996G D 287W WC G my AS SPEC§HED W SCHEDULE 8: OF THE CURT FS ACY 1870 O EE IN THE HIGH OURT OF JUDICAIJ‘URE ATB’ILASPU ‘ CAGARH' L) No.‘ 7%?7% ITIONER l¢ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: DiviSional Forest fficeir, Frst Divi: O oe‘ sion Khairiagarh, D ajna:ndgaon C.G) {R (; VERsiUs Via Kumar wJy Shri Shaker anjay Nagar’, t: S Amae Dongararh ' g Rg ) ajnandaon (C G he ,Lgour, Court, ajnahd aoh (C.G.) WRI ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDI C i C R ’ HHTTIS w 15. ( /2010 PETI: ‘1 / istrict: V n Distric bd T b \ R T PET C A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR l WRIT PETITION (L) NO 7333 OF 2010 PETITIONER State of Chhattisgarh Versus ESPONDENTS Vijay KUmar & Anoth r (Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constltutlon of Indla) Smgle Bench Hon ble Shn Satlsh K Agnlhotrl J Present :- Shrl Sushll Dubey, Govt Advocate for the State/petitioner Shrl Ajlt Slngh Advocate for the respondent No 1 ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 31“ day of March 201 1) . By this petltlon the State/petltroner seeks to challenge the legalrty and valldrty of the order dated 28 6-2008 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Labour Court Rajnandgaon In case No 26/lD/2007 (Ref) (Vuay Kumar v DIVIsIonal Forest Offlcer) by whrch the Labour Court dlrected the reinstatement of the respondent No1/employee l Without back wages Learned Govt Advocate appearing for the State/petrtroner submlts r that the appomtment of the respondent No.1/employee was not In accordanfce with law and was de hors the constitutional scheme of l emplOyment. After completion of the work, the respondent No.1 has beeri removed from the service. The Labour Court passed the r 1 ' impugned order in an illegal and arbitrary manner. ‘Learned l counsel further submits that In compliance of the order dated 28 6-200? passed by the Labour Court by order dated 31 10 2008 (Annexure - P/2) the respondent No.1 has been reinstated in serVIce I Per contra Shrl Smgh learned counsel appearing for the l respodnnet No 1/employee submits that the Labour Court after LI r' conSiderI‘ng the facts and Circumstances of the case in its letter and s i I spirit pased the order dated 28 6-2008 Even the respodnnet No 1 R has fully established the fact that he has rendered the service for mo‘re than 240 days in a calendar year. Shri Singh further submits thajtéthe impugned order was passed on 28-6-2008 and on the basis of the said order, the respodnnet No.1 was reinstated on d on 10-12-2010 i.e. after; a delay of more than two years without explaining the delay and glaches properly. Thus, this petition desetrves to be dismlssed i 31—10-2008. Thereafter, the petiton was file on the ground of delay and laches alone. Having heard learned counsel appearing forithe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended,thereto, it is evident that ,while passing the order dated 28—6—2008 the Labour Court observed that the respondent No.1 has worked for more than 240 days and while removmg the respondent No 1 the petitioner/State has not followed the provrsrons prescribed under Section 25F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitoner has not approached this Court immediately against the order dated 28-6-2008, but after compliance of the same. The instant petiton has been tiled by the petitoner after a period of more than tvilo years without explaining the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. in the facts of the case, wherein grant of relief of teinstatement was acted upon and the petitoner did not feel proper to question the same and thereaftrer, it appears to be an after-thought to challenge the sam‘e Thus in the facts of the case it Is not proper to interfere With the impunged order dated 28 6- 2008 at thrs stage As an up shot, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ,‘w I Sd/- ' i i n Satish K.Aguihotri ‘ ’ i Judge l i i i