...-s»»-1 ©OUm'FBESBXBVIPTED ByNOTlRCATION'NO. 996Q^287Q/XXI. WC.^/96 AS SPECtRED IN SCHEDULE I &a^PWE COURT FEES ACT 1870. <7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE CHHATTCS^ARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fU N03113/2008 slj1^ B@ PETCTCONERS ...•^ «^..4^ . \(bv.A^V<"~ ^'^iy ^^y ..^ t''- •^ ^' . <y 1.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Engineer In Chief, Water Resources bepartment, Siwaha Bhavan Civil Line, Raipur (C.6.) 2. The ChiefEngineer, Mahanadi Project, Shankar Nagar Chowk, Raipur (C.6.) 3.. The Executive Engineer, Water Management Division, bivision No. 1, Behind Kalimai Mandir, Akashwani Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The^Divisional Officer, Water Management Sub- Division, Division No. 3, O.C.M. Chowk, Raipur (C.6.) RESPONDENT s^ ..——.^^ VERSUS The President, Nirman Avam Yantriki Jal Sansadhan Karamchari Sangh, Bairan Bazar, Raipur (.C.G.) Through: Aggrieved Party - Premtal Yadu, Aged about - 35 years, S/o - bhanuram Yadu, Daily Wage Employee, R/o - Near the Bungalow of Vidhan Sabha Speaker, Irrigati'on Servant Quarter, Shanti Nagar, Raipur {C.G.} WRIT PETCTION UNDER ARTCCLE 226/227 QF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA L. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATJMLASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3119 of2008 PETmON.ERS : State ofChhattisgai-h &0thers. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : The President, Nii-man Av-am Yantriki Jal Sansadhan Karmachari Saii^i. WRIT PE'I'mON UNDER ARTIC.LE 226/227 OF THE CONSriTUTION OF INDIA SB: Ilon'Me S!m _8atish K.^ Agmfaotri, J. Present: Shri Sushii Dubev, Goverrmient Advocate for the petitioners/State. pRDER(OjRAL) (Passed on 14th day of Januar>', 2011) Challenge iii this petition is to the order dated 12.11.2007 (Armexiire P/l) passed in Case No. A/30/ID.Act/2005/Reference, by the Labour Court, Raipur, whereby it was directed that that the name ofthe respondent No. I may be included in the gradation list and accordingly, he may be regularized aiid fiullien to appomt the petitioner cn the post ofAnieen with consequential reliefs. The facts, iii nutehell, as projected by the petitoiners/State is fiiat tlie respondent No. 1 was apponted on daily vvages basis on 04.11.1984. The respondent No. 1 continued in service till theyear 2003 asid during this penod, the respondent No. 1 acquii'ed qualification ofHindi T^pmg and English Typmg on 03.01.1988 and 31.12.1989, respectively. llie respondent No. 1 made seve-ral representations for appomting him o,n the post of Aiiieeii/Time 2 ^ Keeper which were not accepted by the Department. 'The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved with the non-action of the petitioners/State, wherein his name was not included in the semority list, approached the ofHce of the ^istant Labour Commissiosier as a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the matter coiild not be settled between the parties, the respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court alleging fhat as per the circular/order dated 09.01.1990 (Annexure P/4), he ought to have been regularized as he was working with the petitioners/State prior to 31.12.1988. The Labour Court, vide order dated 12.11.2007 (Aimexure P/4) which is impugned hei'ein, directedthe petitioners/State to regularize the respondent No. 1, with consequeiitial benefits, as albrestated. SM Dubey, leamed Goveinment Advocate appearing for the petitioiiers/State submits that the leamed I.abour Court has not considered the facts ofthe matter in its tme perspective and the impugne order suffers trom gross irregiilarity. He farther submits that the respondent No. 1 has approached this Court through his IJmon, which is not pemiisssble. Heas'd leamed counsel for the petitioners/State, pemsed the pleadmgs and documents appended thereto. The documents and evidence, produced by the respondent No. 1 were neither denied nor controverted by the petitioners/State bcfore the Labour Coyrt. The Labour Court, accordingly having held that the documents produced by the employee were pyblie docusiieiit and no attempt was made osi behalf of the ..^^A."%. y t^.^" ii ^ !^f1}^ ivs^ | '^-ff^' ^^ h11"*-^. 4\ 3 -/ State//petitioiiers to coiitrovert the same, and as .such, same were accepted. Accordmgly, 011 the basis ofthe documents.produced by flie respondent employee, the order of placing the pefitoitier m the seniority list, in accordance with lavv, was passed. The challeiige of the petitioners/State on teclmical grouiids without raismg. the said issue before the Labour Court is not permissible. 6. It is a trite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction fbr issue of writ of certiorari or super^isoiy jurisdiction under ^ticle 227 of the Constitution of India, would not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation ofevidence or correct errors in drawing inferenccs or correct errors ofmere fomial or technical char<icter. 7. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mcmgesh Raj'aram Wagle &0thers , observed as imder: "21...There have been sevei'al olfaer instances in which dilferent High Courts have passed orders in exercise ofpower uiider Articles 226 or 227 ofthe Constitution of India disregafding the Imiitations identified and mdicated by this Court in several decisioiis 011 the exercise ofthat power. .We hope ancl trasl tliat m firture the High Courts would keep m view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/supervisory jurisdiction and refrain from decidmg the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Ailicle 227 of the Constitution as if fhey are adjudicating appeals filed against the orders ofthe lower courts or otherjudicial/quasi-judicial bodies/authorities." 8. The ratio laid dowii m the aforestatedcase has been referred with approval m Shalini Shyam Shetty &Another v. RajendraShankar Patil1. 2010 AIR SCW 1414 ,A^^-^^:^''V. ^ ^/ ?' J / '^2:y Aiiiit 1 4-' 9. I?i the case on hand, no jurisdictional en'or, infmnity or in-egularity has been pomted out. Thus, this Court, m exercise ofits power under Artide 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not mclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, jusl and proper. 10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe case, no mterference is wan'anted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs, — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (2010) 8 SCC 329