s If D^-ionBsTKA- BBFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCrARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.^ <g^ Of 2009. APPELLANT Respondent No. 1 (Petitioner in the Labour Court) RESPONDENTS :: Puna Ram Yadav, S/o. Shri Samaru Ram, aged about 45 years, R/o. Khodi Khana Road, Vasantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus :1) State of Chhattisgarh D.F.0. Bhanupratappur, West Kanker (C.G.) PETITIONER (DefendantNo.l inthe Labour Court) :2) Managing Vanopaj Maryadit, Director, Zila Sahkari Sangh Bhanupratappur, WestKanker(C.G.) RESPONDENT No.2 (Defendant No.2 in the Labour Court) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE (UPF THE CHHATnsaARH HIGH COURT^ (APPEAL TO ^SMM^ DIVISION BENCHl ACT RULES 2006. ^' HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justicel.M. Quddusi and Hon'bleShri Justice PrashantKumarMishra ^ Writ ADDeal No.89 of 2009 Appellant Puna Ram Yadav versus RespOndents State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.1. ShriA.S.Kachhawaha,counsglfr)ri^sRpndent,No.2. ADpeal underSection 2 Clause (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (ADDealtoDivisionBench)Act, 2006 WritADDeal N6.90 of2009 •uU^U'.i-'^f Appellant ArvindSonkar versus ReSDondents State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocatewith Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. ShriAmrito Das, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.1. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, counsel for respondent No.2. Appeal under Section 2Clause (1V ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeattb Division Bench) Act. 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on30th March, 2010) ^ :- • • •• • .'•''• Perl.M. Quddusi. J.: Learned counsel appearing for theparties are heard finally. ^f" -2-- 2 . Disposal of WritAppeal No.89/2009 shall also govern the disposal of Writ Appeal No.90/2009, as they arise out of acommon order dated 5-3-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions (L) No.2760/2008 and 2761/2008. By the impugned order dated 5-3-2009, both the writ petitions preferred by the State of Chhattisgarh through Divisional Forest Officer, Bhanupratappur, West Kanker (Chhattisgarh) have been allowed and the order dated7-12- 2007 passed bythe LabourCourt, Rajnandgaon has been quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants Puna Ram Yadav and Arvind Sonkar were appointed as daily wager though the appellants had raised a plea before the Labour.Court that they were appointed under the Divisional Forest Officer but the xerox copies of the documents annexed with the writ petitions show that they were appointedon daily wage basis by the Managing Director of the Zila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Bhanupratappur, West Kanker and their services weredispensedwith videorder dated 7-3-2000, a xerox copy ofwhich is annexed asAnnexure R-2/1 with the return ofthesaid Managing Director/respondent Np.2 in both the writ petitjpns. Further, the Managing Directpr/respondent No.2 has also filed xerox copy of a document with Writ Petition (L)No.2760/2008, which is the certificate and voucher of muster rollNo.6202/36, showing payment of wages of Rs.6,351/- by the Managjng ,Director for jthe perjpd ^om 1-4-1994 to 30-4-1994 and has also filed xerox copy of another document with Writ Petition (L) No.2761/2008 asAnnexure R-2/3, which isthe certificate and voucher 6f must^F roll No.6202/08, showing payment of wages of Rs.5,242/- by the Managing Director for the period from 1-3-1994 to 3&-3-1994. Copy ofthe muster roll, issued on 1-4-1994, in which name ^^T———' •uoitoipsunf tnoqijM SBM uoEBpueufBy 'ljnoo jnoqe~| sifl Aq psssed ZOOZ-ZI.-Z psiep jepjo peuBndui! eqi 'AjBuipJooov 'sseo luesejd eqi ui a|qeo!|dde eq }ou p|noM ^Q\, 'iov saindsiQ jeuisnpui 94} 'ejo^ajsi^t 'puB 0961. 'WV seiiaioos 9A!iejado-OQ qjeBsiueLiyo 941 jspun pejatsiBej Aiepos 9A!}Bj8do-oo'e si qoiijM 'jaifUBx is9M '-inddeiBjdnueyg 't!peAje|/\| L|6ues ue^qes fedoueA E|!Z silUO JOIOBJIQ BuiBeuei^ 94} Aq paiuiodde SJBM Aeij} 'jaiiiej 'jeoiyo Aue si! JQ iu9LUUJ3A09 SIBIS 841 Aq J34118 paiuiodde ||e ie iou ajsm siue||8dde eqi -aouspiAs ^eiusLunoop eqi 01 AJBJ}UOO pue ssj3Ajsd A||E}O} si ijno3 jnoqe-] 841 p Buipui} aqi ieq} MaiA uijy 941 jo eje SM 'siueainoop 941 Buismed jeyv 'fr •jnoABjjiayi ui ZOOZ-Z1.-Z P9»epjapjo si|l passed 's}ue||9dde'eqi Aq Spetu s}U3iuj9Ae ey} uo 6ujA|9j pue eLUBSsqi SuyouBi 'ijnoo jnoqe-] aqi (nq 'Z^SL 'PV seindsia |B!4snpu| 9qi jepun uogoipsunf eq» ui4}iM iou si slndsip sylqons se pue 0961. 'PV seiieioossAiiejedo-oo qjeesiueyyo SL|} jepun pej9}si69J Aieioos eAiiBjedo-oo e si ja)|ue»}s9AA 'JriddBiejdnueyg 'iipeAjei/y L|Bues uB)|qes fedoueA E|JZ 34» leyi pue Z-ON tuspuodsej/joiosjia Bu!Beue|/\| 94} Aq psiuiodde SJSM siue||adde 941 leqi IjnoQ jnoqe-i 34} ejo^eq pssiej SBM uoitoafqo ue leyi sjeadde t| •sAep 9Z jo^ p3)|joM OS|B pui/uy iue||adde st|} leqt sMoqs '(SOOZ/I-SZZ'ON (-1) uoiiitad tu/v\ 41'M psxeuuee/z-y sjnxsuuv^o yed) £'ON-|S te aoe|d spuy puiAjy »ue||3ddeaqHOSLueu yojqM ui 'frSGI.-S-l. uo psnss! 'lioj jeisniu 3L|t p Adoo -sAep 92 jo^ ps^joM ujey eund iue||9dde eqi leqi SMoys '(900Z/09^Z'ON ("1) uoiwsd 4"M 4t!* pexeuue g/z -y ajnxauuv^o IJBJ) Z'ON'IS 90E|d spuy Luey eund iue||edde equo -?- . ^ '"f^ '"tlSM^ 3opal r ~^i- . 5. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of the connected writ appeal_ • Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1'a