]»,-5-- ( <5?> ,c. ^oSii (\''^s^~"wa ,'A *>.'.-• /?'<y . . 'c^'^' ?'?A?ii. '-<^iS ..,-.\<s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. t^f-lto. St\23 /2010 PETITIONER : ^ Sitabai Soni, Aged about 40 ' years, W/o. Lakhanlal Soni, R/o. Near Police Station of Irrigation Colony Darri, Dist.- Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barage Water Management, Rampur w'\,h': Korba, DisU. Korba (C.G.) ;.,. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Barage Water Management Rampur, Korba Distt.- Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : .0 A-' ,^-^.^y ^'•:fiQ^y i\.f/ '.••"' ^l^^' 9'u.-^.^1"' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (U N0.2483 OF 2010 PETITIONER Sitabai Soni RESPONDENTS Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.P. Kale and Shri D.C. Verma, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of June,2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24-12-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Korba, in case No.1/ID Acf2008 (Reference), whereby the application of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The appointment of the petitioner is governed under the provisions of Sections 25B & 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1947"). If the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of calendar year, he is entitled for grant of retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. Admittedly, the petitioner has been found working for more than 240 days, as is evident from last 2 paras of page 6 of the impugned order 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even 25G of the Act, 1947 has also not been considered in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioner have been retained and the petitioner has been removed from the service. The Court below without examining the matter on merits and without recording any finding with regard to work of the petitioner as well as other consequential benefits, in a casual and cryptic manner, relying on various decisions of the -Supreme court as well as of this Court, dismissed the application of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. Stae ii "S?"l-5' 6. Gowri of Harya.na . In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made in contravention of recruitment ru/es and constitutional scheme of employment. However, in view of the materials placed before the Labour Court and in this Court, we are satisfied .,. that the said principle would not apply in the case on hand. As rightly pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity of service for which he is legally entitled to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen is whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months ornot. If sufficient materials are shown that workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him, in such circumstances his termination was illegal. All the decisions relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the case on hand more particularly, in view of the specific factual finding by the Labour Court." Applying the well settled principles of law to.the facts of the case on hand, wherein the Court below without adverting the factual disputes misunderstood the ratio laid down in the above stated cases and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24-12-2009 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Ramesh Kumar (supra) and other decisions. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2010AIRSCW897