s' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WrV W.P.^JNo. Of 2011 PETITIONER Applicant ^ •>/Shri Surendra Pal Singh, aged about 37, S/o. late Shri Sheikh Bahadur Singh, Qr.No.05-A, Street No.18, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS :lj Principal, Dehli Public School, Non-applicants Maroda Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Q^\":^ :2) ^Admininstrative Officer, Dehli <2)SA. 1<'<'^.^!?C. Public School, Maroda Sector, ^:€^\p^ - Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ,^^y- ^.'•' ^.6' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fe ID R 1 — HIGH CQURT OF CHHATnSGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (227) No. 3603 of2011 PETmONER Applicant RESPONDENTS ^ Shri Surendra Pal Singh. VERSUS PrincipaL DeMii Public School & Anotiier. Non-Applicants WRTF PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF 'EHE CONSTTTLmON OFWD1A SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Asmhotri, J. "'.fc- Present: Shri H.B.Ayawal, Senior Advocate wdlfa Shri K.S.Pawar, Advocate forthe petitioner. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 07" day ofJuly, 2011) 1. The petttioner seeks to challenge Itae award dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/6) passed in Case No. 14/I.D.Act/2007(Reference) by Ifae Labour Court, Durg, whereby Ifae claim of the pedtioner has been rejected. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by Ifae petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Driver in the montfa of July, 2003 and worked upto May, 2004. Thereafter, he was orally tenninated from service. Thus, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Conmu^ioner, IXir^ wUeh was referred to the Labour Court, IXn-g. The petitioner subinitted his statement ofclaim (Anaexure P/2.). The same was duly replied by the respondents (Annexure P/3). Afler due eonsideration ofthe matter, the elaim ofthe petitioner was rejected. 1 . 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the peritioner subnrits that the Labwir Court, applying the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State ofKamataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and other^, held that the petitioner had no right to continue on the said post. Shri Agrawal ftirther suhmits that the Labour Court has further not clearly given any finduig in regard to working of 240 by the petitioner days in the preceding year. (2006) 4 SCC 1 Nftg -/ 4. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Admittedly, flie petitioner was appoilrted on tenyorary basis and thus, he had not aequired any right to Ihe post as his appointment was not in aceordance with the constitirtional sdheme of employment. In view ofthe above, the petitioner has not aequired aay ri^it to the post, and if he has not acquired aay right to the post, nat considering or exteiKling the tenn ofappotabaent camiot be held as illegal and vitiated. (See: Uma Devi (siyra}, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Worhnen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceiiticats Ltd? and Qfficial Liquidator Vs. Deyanand and other^). 6. Purther, the petitioner has failed to prove its case that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The principle oflaw is well settled m this regard as m Sita Ram & Others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute , tiie Supreme Court, having cousidered several decisions, observed as under: "16. Although at onepoint oftlme, the biirden ofproofused to beplaced on the employer, in view cfa catena of recent decisions, it must be held that the burden of proof is on the •workman to shcw that he has completed 240 days in ayear." 7. The Labour Court has categorically held that the petitioner has failed to establish that he had worked for 240 da)®at any time, particularly in the precedingyear. It is well settled prineiple oflaw that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of section 25-F offte Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if he has not completed 240 days working m the preeediag year. The petitianer was appointed on 24.06.2003 and his period eame to an end on 01.10.2003, though a cantrary stand has been taken by the petitioner Ifaat he was refiised to enter into the prenrises for work in July, 2004. ftom asy aagle, it is not established that the petitioner had completed 240 days in tiie preceding year. 22007(1)SCC408 ^.(2008) 10SCC 1 CZ008)5SCC75 vl /— - —>J3\ 8. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. LJis. & Ors. v. Afangesh Raj'aram WagSe & Oiher/, observed as under: "21... There have been sevwal other instances in which different High Courts have passedorders in esxereise ofpower underArticles 226 or 227 of the Constitulion qflndia disregcirding the Ijmitations identifled and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that pawer. We hope and trust that in fitture theHigh Ccmrts -weuldkeepin view the limitations cf certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refi-ain from deciding the writ petitions flled imder Article 226 or petitions/apptications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjudicating appeals flled against the orders ofthe lower oourts or other judiciaVyiasi-judicml bodies/authorities." 9. The ratio laid dovm in Ihe aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty &Another v. Rajendra Shcnkar Pattf. In fhe case on hand, no jiurisdictional error, infinnity or irregularity has been pointed out Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 aad 227 of the Cmistitution of India, is not inclined to iirterfere wOfa the impugned order whidi is le^l, just and proper. 11. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe csse, no interferenee is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petitionis dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2010 AIRSCW 1414 (2010) 8 SCC 329 Amit