@ HI&H COMRT OF jQHJ-iArEXS^Bti DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDR^ MISHRA & HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHAN&RAK^R. JJ W,A,_No,32_7/2009 (Appeai u/s 2 (1) of the C.0. High Court Adhiniyam, 2007) APPELLANT Vs BESPONDENTS Ramkumar Chandei, 5/o Anuj Kumar, about 42 yrs, through Navjeet Kumar Raman/ 25/12 Nehru Naqer (West) Bhilai (Chharrisgarh) 1. State of Chhattjsgarh throuoh Secretary Pubijc Works DeparTmenT, Mantraiya, ftaipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chief Enaineer, Public Works Department, Khairagarh, District Rajnand9aon (CG) 3, Presiding Officer Industria! Court Kaspur, (ChhatTisgarh) Present: Mr. J.S. Barik, Advocate for the appe!!ant. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate Seneral with Mr. S.K. Mishra, P.L for the State. (19.11.2009) 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 5,3,2009 passed in W.P. No.3187/2004 wherebv the writ oetition filed bv the State ©overnment aoainst the order of the Industrial Court has been ailowed and the order passed by the Industrial Court has been set aside with a direction to oav retrenchment comoen^tion of Rs.50,000/- to the GCDellant under Section 25-.F of the Industrial DiSDutes Act, 1947. 2. Mr. Harit, learned counset for the State submits that the instGnt writ appeal is not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the C.^. Hiqh Court (ADpeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 as no appeal lies against the order pas^d in exercise of supervisory iurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiG. fteliance is piaced m the matter of Ram@sh Ch<andr<s SankKs Etc. Vs. Vikram C@m@nt Ete. reported in AIR 2009 SC 713. 3. On the other hand. Mr. Barik, learned counse! for the aDDefiant submits that the writ Detition was fiied under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Havin9 heard learned counsel for the parties and haying regard to the fact that the learned Sinale Judae, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aaainst the order passed by the Industria! Court, has oassed the imDuaned order, the instant writ appeal is not maintainable, as held in Ramesh Chandra SanktaEtc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc. (supra). 5. Accordinaiy, the writ QDDeal is dismissed as not matntdnable, Roshan Tk Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge