Ife Kii. SK:^ • IBBfcffi TH^'HlG-aeQURT OR WDICATHRE^AT.BILASPUR •iC^ , ... •- ^-. '^) 'W^ • 7Q7 Wiaa'AP^E^^U/SaililQiFTHECHHATTISGARHHIGB C^R^(APPEALTOiaiVISlONBfiNGHiACT.20t)6 s& %^ B» s&EPELLAN'ES/ • ^RESPONDENTSI ;ISfQ...l^TO\:^-.''1 /^.. 2. ^-- ,;7'3.;: ^: State of.CKhattisgarh, Thrcmgli: Secaretary,: Public Works Deptt., D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, RatpurfC.G.) Chief Engineer, PWD, North Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, PWD, North Bastar, JagdalpurfC.G.) Sub Divisional Officei-, PWD,Nd.3, JagdalpurfC.G.) JVERSUS iRESPONEEN'E/ IPETITIONER ^ Smt. Eadma Mathrani, W/Q - Shri Jairam Mathrani, Aged about - 44 years, R/o -(gr.E./lS, Awantika Colony, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Arisihg out 'of the order passed in W.P. No; 11^5/02, toytheSH^^ A|gnihotri< 27/10^05, aUwOTngtheWi-itPetition. il!i 'l! ws? HJ<^G©U(CTOFCHKft1~RS<3ftRH^fi .»SPyR DB: Hoh'bleShnJlusticel.M.QyeldusJ Hon't ^ritADDealNo. 152^/2007 Appellants/ StateofGhhattisgarhandothers. No.TfeA ResDondenV Petitioner V@sys Smt. PadmaMsfthrani ShriWnayHarii,DeptrtyAdvo6ate©eneralwithShrtAjjtS(ngh, Panef Lawy^ for the State/aB^iants. Ms. SharmilaStnghai,Q6unse!forl(her^pondenfc WrifftROealilundeRSesi jy ORAL ORDER Perl.M.Quddusi.J. Tftfe writ appegl has been fMed agaiiist Ihs^^^ ^ jy!dgroentahdortterdated27 ^^0 Singte Judge in W.P. No. 1175/2XS, allovifli^ tiie wtt pyition and quashingtheimptignedorderdated ( -10^)00, whichv^sanonjer of fetrenchment <rf the resgQiirieslt he^n ftxto direGtiort that the responderrt te ^irstated immediatesly in seryjce with effect frbm 06-10-2000 with all conswyentis 50% back-wages. (2) BneTfBcts ofth&case3r&^hat!th& as^Sopyist on 8aily wage bsste ^n Ot-Q1-1%8 beRefitsiReiycting w®'.: iaJRsEtReivaisa g!iife: B^^.:.:^.:n-^K?; ^M^iy:"^ vasi'sx'"' ;•• il BS :^ y<". BKI ViK KSSs, :te- post under, reserve <;ategory byt t ••''..• . '•'.'" 1988. Shewas agasn re-appointei and cwstinued tilt t8-Gia-1%7. on the same servfcss of t from WrW- :on 01-02-1989 espondent was terminatedonthegfoyrsclthatherseFw^swerenqlQi^erretMjired. (3) Being aggrieved, the resporrient ftled an application under Section 31(3) reatt w'rth Sectton 61 of the M P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 befQre the Labour Court, Jagdalpur, Bastat, ftie Labour Court,Jagda!pur,Bastar(M.P.)<intheeretohiteStateQfM.P.before Re-organization) in the sa'Kt appl'Kation (Case No.11/97) vide order dated 2tf May, T^9 hetd that termination of the ?%spondent comes under the category of retrerwhmert SKK! therefore the same was iiSegalandnotinaGcordancewithlas.TlTffiLabourGourtdirestedto reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages. The appea! preferred by the State Governsnsnt wasdismissed ly the Industrial Court vide order dated 08-Q4-20(X). (4) The State ©ovemmentdid not prefer to chaltei^e the order of the Industnal C<wrt rather on the date of jQiniF^ of the respondent i.e. dated 08-10-20CX), on the same day fesusd the erder of termination with the amount of coinpensation throi^h bankers cheque, as iaki down upder the provisnns of SectioR 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Beirg aggrieved by the order dated 06-10-2000 theresponaent filedabove mentsoney writpetttion ^tob was hearti and deckled tsy leamed SsnQle Judge in favour of tbe petitton holtfmg that (5) Learped Single Ju<^e entertained the wnt since the Laboar Court has reinstatedthe as such, the extraoreiinary situation has ansen and under the^ facts and riT circumstances, vvhethei-thepetitiohershouklbe driven tothe Labour Court for seeSdng remedy against the order oftermination dated 06- ), or of this Court shouki decide the case in sxerdse of fts extraordinary jurisdictton: Learned Singte Judge opined that under extrgiordinaryjunsdiGtiontomeetsuchdrcymstancesbyeRte.'taining the petition under Artfete 2%/227 of the Constitution of tndia, without direGting the petitioner to avasi first altemative remedy, the writ petitionshoutdbeentertained. {6) BeTore proceeding further, it is necessary to indicste here that under the Industrial Act, 1947 retrenchm^it is r»till^ai if thesame is done following the provisions of Sectton 25-F, which reproducedas under:- wortanen.- No woikfnai'! emfrioyed in any inclustry who hss been m continuous servtee for not less than one yaar underan empteyer shaSl be retrenched by ffiat employaruntit- (a^ ths workman has been yven one month's noSce in writing Sndlcating ths reasons for ret'enchment and the period of notice has expired, or ttse workman has tseen paid sn lieu Qf sucft noffce, wages fisr ths periodof the notsce; (b) tfw wdrkman tsas been paid, atthe time of retrenchraeRt, compensationwhKh shal!6e sqwvalentte ffteen days' average pay for svery Gompleted year of ,..i.^- •»'l-'"IHiffff" iiir1! •^- asH.~.:;7i ^ ^i ESiS BSi: SSK tf* continiious servicejor sinypart thereof m excess ofsix monffis^snd (c) notice in the fyescnbed manner is served on the appmpriate Govemment for such siuthorify as may be speciHeti by the appropriate Govemmeni by noWcaVon infheOfSciaKSazette" (7) The respondent was engaged by the Publie Worte Department as a Copyist. We are not considering at the preserst Vrtiether ttie respontient was a workman or n<A, as the State Gbvemmenthayfollowedthe^irectionsoftheLabourCourtwithout challenging the same by which it was Inter alia hs!d that the termination order of tlte respondent corees URder the category of retrenchment, reiRstatir^ the respondent in compfiar^e of the directions of the Labour Court. But tte resp)Rdent was again retrenched wnth due compiiaRce ofthe provisions of Sectton 25-F of the industrial DisputesAct. (8) ItmaybenOticsdherethattheStateGovemmerthadmadei pcrticy iri view of the finanGial Saurcien on tt to reSrench all ftie employses ei^agedafter 31-12-1988. Sincethe respondent ».'as alsoengagedafterthatdateshewasatsoi^trenehed. (9) R^renchment of a workman is not barred under the IndustRa! Disputes Act, 1947. But ihe statute provides that the conditions imposedmmakjngretreRChmentprocessstTOuldbestnctlyfollowed. Section 25 F of the Aet, 1947 provides such conditions, thersfore, if a workman is retrenched fQttowing the preyisjon®of the Industria! Disputes Act, 1947 and the Ryles made thereunder, it cannot b k :ifaiin :r 1 II III KRt- - 5- said that thevwsrKntan could not have been retrenched at all. The reason for ^renchrr»nt was the firraro^ arsd the retrenchrront was to be made under a poltoy by whfch it was intimated that all the emp!oye®s engaged after 31.12.186Q. be r^renched. IftherespondertwouldhavebeenFetainedyiolatJngthe policy, theother Similariy sttyated worianen, who were engaged poor to th& engagement of the resporKlCTit (senior to the respondeRtsh couid ctaim the discrtntination and therefore if the responderrt was TetrenchedfotlamngthedueprocedurelaiddowntRSeGtiQnZS Fof the industrial Djspytes Act, 1947, the aetion of the appellant/State cannotbetermed asdtecriminatoryorviolativeofstatute. (10) Leamed coUnsel for the respondent placed reliance OR the deeisjon in the case of /?a»neshXumar Vs. Sfate AIRSCW8S7, wherein befbre Hon'Me Supreme Coyrt the only point forconsideration in the appeal was that, whsther the High Court was justified m setting askle the award oif the Labour Court when the appeliant had estabtished that appetlant was in continuous service for a period of 240 days in a catendar years,partfeu!ar!y, when similarty placed workmen were regularized by the Oovemment, But the case on hand is nrt sirrutar to the case ^! Raitiesh Ktiinar{sapTa) ss in the instanf sass under the policy of the State GQvemment every employeeeEigagedafter 31.12.1988 was So be retrenched and as such there was no questton of regulap.zinc workmen who were appointal gfter 31.12.1^8 andft N noi the case of the rsspondent faeftwe the leamed Sir^gle Judge or^bgfore us thst any of the woriwnen engased sfter 31.'t2.1988 was regulartzed. „»•- BE< -fe' Therefere, the law lakt down bythe Hon'bleApex C%lrt in the case of Rannesfrl&fmar(Supra) is not a^ilK^tote in the instarft case. (11) tn the case of M.P. Woustesr Boanf and Anoffier Vs. Manoj Sftrtyastsya 20WSCCft.&S)422HOn'b\e Suprame Gourt has held that 'rt is now well settled that on!y because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does f t derive any legalright to be regularized in service and the appointment made by a persori who has no authorsty therefore such appoiRtment woyM be vski and a person wth s view to oUtairi vatid ^atus mu^ be appoinled jn terms of the statutory rules. (12) tn wew of the above diseusston, we are of the Qpinion that the retrenchment of the respondent made after her reinstatement jn compliance of theorder passed by theLabourGourt, re'instating her back in ser/ice, in accordance w'sSh the poiicyiaid downbythe State Govemment, making due compliance of the provfeions ot Sectton 25 F ofthelncitstrKilDisputesAct, 1947, Is perfeotty legal and is not discriminatory or arb'itrary. (13) tn view of the above,we allow the writ appeal and set-aside theim^jgRed judgment and order dated 27-10-MCS, passKl by the teamect Smgle Judge. No order as to costs. (14) At thisstage, teamedcounse! for therespondent hasshown a circular dated 0?ld December, 2000 in whfch it has been mentioned that if the emptoyees of daiiy wages are required, a Commfttee be constituted and procedyre stetl be fixed to fiU up the post. b VJA- 1 -7- : , :. However, this is not within the stjbject matter is open for fhs respondent to maKe re?ffesentation befors the authorityGoncemedforthatpurpose. SdA LM.Quddusi 7>Judgfr Pras Sd/- ^tKinn"Mishra Judge Ksmde ^ ^ u