.^ t^ Before the .Honourable High Court of Chh^ttis^arh, At Bil_aspur <,C(3.). Writ petition No. <8'^^ / 2002. Petitioner i- M/S Mahabeer Transport Company» Kusumkasa» Distt. Durg. Through Its Partner, '^mt. Sushila Bai wd/o Late Mahoharlal Jain« Vs. Responde^nt :- Shri Shanker Rao son of Late Raja Rao. Akulwar, Resident of Amdi Mandir, %^ Dur§.(C.G.).- 'etition under Article 226/227 of the Consti_tytion of India. ~\ HIGH_CQXJRT OP JUDICATURE CHHATnSGARH: BIL^SPWR Single Bench: Hoa'ble Shri 8atish K. Agnlhotri, J. W. P.No. 838 of 2002 Petitioners : M/s MahaberTrausport Conapany Vcrsus Respondents : Stari Shanker REK>' Shri Indr^sen Sahu, Advocate for the petitk>ner. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishia, Advocate for fhe respondent. .^ ORDBR (9f November, 2006) 1. The petitioner has preferred fhis writ pctitwa under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 9.4.2002 (Aiuacxure P/l), passed in Case No. 3/ I.D.Act/ 97 (Civi^ by fhe Laboiir Court Dui^. 2. Leamed counsel for fhe petttioner subinits ttiat on an appUcation filed by fhe respondent under Section 33-C (2) of fhe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court held that the respondent was a workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Acfc The Labour Court ftufher held that fhe respondent was appoiated orally by fhe petitioner on nionfhty pay of • Rs. 3,000/- and that he has not been paid wages finm 1992 on wards. Accordingly, fhe Learaed Labour Court, decreed fhe claim of Rs. 2,16,000/- for thc period 1992 to 1996 wifh ®X>interest from the date ofpresentation ofttie appUcatiou. rf ^ggg^igs^ 3. Learaed counsel appearmg for the partfes, jointly submit fhat fhe question of law involvcd in this petition whefher fhe appUcatfon uader Section 33-C (2) of fhe Act, 1947 is maintaiaable to decide tfae status of workinan and further grant of reUef without adjudication before ofher appropriate forum, is squarely covered by the jiidgment and order dated 22nd Novcmbcr, 2005 passed hy a Division Bench of tfais Court in W.P.No. 3409 of 2000 (South Eastem Coalfields Lmuted & another Vs. The Geaeral Secretaxy, M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha & others), on the Msiie as to whether the Labour Court at Dzirg is competent under Scction 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to determine and adjudicatc upon fhe issue of reference. It has bcen informed by leamed coimsel for thc petittoner that the Spccial Leave Ptetition No. 1373/2006, filed against fhe order dated 22.11.2005, has been disinissed by the Hon'ble Supreine Court vide order dated 17.4.2006. 4. The petition is accordingly aUowed ia terms of the judgment and onler datfd 22nd November, 200R passert m W.P.No. 3409 of 2000 (supra). The ianpugned order dated 9.4.2002 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court is quashed. The respondent te at Uberfy to seek redressal of bia grievance as per the ppovisions of law elsewhere before the appmpriate forum. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^liakur