I mllll W Illlllll”lllllllllllllllll ‘ ' “ ° “ ‘ MPNO¢ 722 /9 < wfg- g u : Vlslonal Fares’c Offlcmn Preductlon Blvmmn, Dhamdhari, DlSltgRalpur‘, i?ET IT ONER I - VLAU - D “"PNDFNLS :1. Presiding‘i’ficer, abour” Cour Burg .3 2. GenerarSecrI‘eta-rm aver'nment Timber Deat and 3aw Mill, Mazdoar Sangh; Nar-i‘,‘ Distt h‘ mMr/vnwwvnvmwmr-r. @'3:~. mTITmN UNDuR RRTmLLs 225 & 227 OF THE CONsmImTTm oFmIA E FDR TH xsSUANCE 0r A WRIT IN 1m NMURn. OF CERTxoQARI, MAND ANGUS LT AND ALDO I gm THE NECESSAR DmcmoNsw mNr‘‘p Mr». nn A nr» ._ .. ? DI O - Q L t, \l}\lB)‘' ? l G p g g * Y m 3am,m,%amgt 3mm ‘f;f;.i-ata?/2. Wm ' a1 200 m mmmw WWW§WW %ea%qw%¥[ 7.7.2005 Petitioner by Shn‘ Pankaj Shn'vastava, Panel Lawyer. Respondent No.2 by Shri Pankaj Agaxwal, Advocate. Heani. Learned couhsel for the petih'oner submits that the members of the Respomkent No.2 Union had' gone on indehite shike w.e.f. 6.3 1987,Without giving a notice as mquimd under the provisions of the Indush'ial Disputes Act, 1947(in brief “the Act 1%4’7”). It is stated that except 9 workers namely; Shri Bhtrwan Lal Sinha, ‘Shri Govardhan Lal Sahu, ‘ Shn' Gomlal S Shn' Ratanlal Sam', Stu-i Anna Ram, Shri Arun Kumar,‘ Mahadeo, Shri Phrsutfam and ‘Shri Sewak Ram; all other mbers of the Union joined their duties on 9.3.1987. The e, the services of 9 members of the Union were termina without any enquiry or notice,as according to the peu’tioner y were daily wages employees. The respondent No. submitted an application under secn'on 10 of the Act 1947 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Rai complaining about their termination n‘om service. en the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was r ferred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide order da d 30.2,1991. The Labour Court vi e its order dated 15.9.1993 held aforesaid 9 workmen was bad and illegal. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed the , (@W) that the termination of XI—HC—22 o ', S ' e t m r , e p h e ' XI—HC—zz ' peiiu'oncr (employer) to reins the sewice without back Wage The petitionar (employe Articles 226 ‘and 227 'of the 0 praying that the award date d 16.9.1993 be set aside. ’l-‘he petiu'oner having compiied with ‘the provisidne of Section 17- B of the1947 mmstated an immediafely after the onler v and they have been working because their earlier employ basis. After the lapse of abo‘ interfering with the mdmgs ( hi View of the above, 1 shall be no order as to costs. 'tate aforesaid 9 employees in S.‘ r) med this writ petition under msh'tution of India on 3.3. 1994 the 9 workmen in the service 'as passed by the Labour Court since 1993 on daily wages basis ment was also on daily wages 1t 11 years there is no point in )f the Labour Court. 'he petition is dismissed. There 1 Sd/- SATISH K. AGNXHOTRI Judge