f COURT FESS EXEMPT® WlJbffftCATION MO. 99$0/D-S8TOflO|- 'S/C'i./OS/AS SPECiREO INSCtiEOyU1 <• "OF TH£COURT FEES ACT 1W ^^^?^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(UNO.^.'3>Lf^ /2009 PETITIONER: ^ ^ .^. RESPONDENTS: ^v<237^:& ^•'""' -•:^?il&- •^•c\ ^••""' m ^ State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Kawardha, Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ' Mahant Sahu, S/o - Shri Bhadu Sahu, R/o - Village 85 Post - Baijalpur, Tah. - Bodla, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) 2. The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTPETmON<D No. 2346 of2009 PETmONER : State ofChhattisgarh. VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : Mahant Sahu & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITm'lON OF WDIA SB; Hon»bleShri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sushil Dubey^ Govemment Advocate fbr the State/petitioiier. Shri AJit Singh, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1. PR»ER(ORAL) (Passed on 11th day of Janum-y, 2011) 1. The petitiooer-State challenges fhe legality aaid validity ofthe award dated 19.06.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon m Case No. 104/ID/2007(Ref), whereby, the Labour Court, held that tfae retrenchment ofthe respondent No. 1 was ordered witliout complying wifh the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'). 2. The Court below has categorically recorded that tfie respondent No. 1 had worked for more than 240 days m the preceding year as required under section 25-B ofthe Act, 1947. Therefore. the employer was under an obligation to comply wifh the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 which wa^ not done in the case. Accordingly, an order ofreinstatement without backwages was passed 3. Contention of Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearmg for the State/petitioner fhat since the petitioner was a daily wager and as such, fhe provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not applicable, was considered bv the Court below. The Labour Court has come to a clear conclusion that the respondent, being a workman, was m a ^ ^.^^y :'^^^2^^' continuous service fbr more than 240 days in tfae preceding year and as such, provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 are applicable. There is no dispute that there was no compliance oftihe provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947. 4. The further contention of Shri Dubey fhat tiie claim ofthe respondent was belated as cause ofaction arose in the year 2000 and after 7 years, the respondent No» 1 had approached the Labour Court for settlement offhe dispute, deserves to be rejected as it is well settled law that in case ofthe industrial disputes, no limitatiori is applicable. 5. This Court, m Ram Kumar Suryvanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Othen\ while comidering the question of delay, observed that prejudice has also to be considered particularly in tihe fact that the provisions ofthe Limitation Act are not applicable to fhe provisions of the Act, 1947. 6. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketmg-cum- Pracessmg Sennce Society Ltd & Anothe^, the Siipreme l Court observed as under: "10....the provisions ofArticle 137 ofthe Schedule to the Limitatian Act» 1963 are not applicableto the proceedings underthe Act andthatthe reliefunder it camiot be denied to fhe workman n^rely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay iftt raised by tfae employer is required to be proved as a matter of fect by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defesice. No reference to tlie Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even m a case v^iete the delay is sliown to be existing. fhe Tribunal, Labour Court, or Board, dealiiig witfa the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to graNt back wages to fhe worlcman till the date he raised the deiiiaiid regardmg 1 2006 LT(CG) 135 3 (1999)68c 82 "^\ ^ '%, •:-s?^ ^-,^/ s.^ X/ Ainit his illegal retrenchment/ tei'mination or dissiiissal. The co»urt may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of foll backwages..'9 7. 1'his dictum was followed subsequently in the cases otGurmailSingh v. Principal, Goyt College ofEducation & Others3 and SM-Nilajkar <& Others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka. 8. It is a trite law fhat the High Court, in exercise of its jwisdiction for issue of writ ofcertiorari or supen7isoryjurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors ofmere fbrmal or technical character. 9. I$i the case on haad, no jurisdictional error, infimiity or irregularity has been pointed out Thus, this Court^ in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India., is not melmed to mterfere wifh the impugned order which is legal, just aiid proper. (See Abdul R(s.ak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rafamm Wagle & Others and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil5. lO.Applying tlie well settled principles oflaw to ttie facts oftfae case, no interference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. ^——— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 3 /' ' (2000)98cc 496 4 2010 AERSCW 1414. 5 (2010) 8 SCC 329