@~ Hmii COURT OF CHHAr HSG I Ar BILAsPUR ‘ Wm Penuon (U/A 22_1_No 451s of 2008 ( WRII‘ PETITIQN UNDER AR HCLE 227 OF THE" CONSTITUTION OF INDLA) (SB Hon'ble Mr Satish K. Agmhotrl, J) Present 1 Shn Vmay Pandey, Advocate tor the petmoner None for tne respondents ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18m day of August, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the Inatter is taken up for hearing v finally The petrtloner by thls petrtron unpugns the legahty and valrd1ty of the order dated 18.07.2008 (Annexure P/l ), passed by the State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in M.A.C. No. l4/C.G.I.R§. I Act/1 1 1i2008. Shn‘ Vinay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the circular No. PDR/7(l7)/2007/691-A dated ()1 0207 whereby, the petl’noner members were rven opportumty to opt tor Voluntary Separatron g a, PETITIdNER : Cement Fmployees Umon Through the General Plaintif£§ Secretary Dushydnt Tlwan S/o late Ram Sharan ' ‘ i ‘ Txwan aged about 56 years R/o 25/45 Brahman Para, Ralpur (CG) 1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS ‘: ]. State Induetnal Court, Through Its Cha1rman Ralpur Defendeuts (CG) i 2. Umon of Indla, Through the Secretary Mmlstry of § Heavy Industry New Delhr E 3. Cement Corporatlon of Indla, through Chan‘man cum Managing Drrector Core—5 Scope Complex 7 LodhlRoad New Delhr 4.Cement Corporatto'n of Ind1a Through General Manager CCI Mandhar Cement Factory, Mandhar, Rarpur (CG) r I EScheme, 2007, otherwise, their services would be terminated by way ‘ €0fretrenchment, before the Labour Comt. iThe petitioner union issued a notice to produce following documents iunder l Order XII, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short {vCPCV). "l Appomtment order grven to the sch duled employees of l the applicant meludmg the terms an]ld condrtrons E2. Documents pertams to the post acated after the VRS § opted by the employee of the Corporate ofhce and operating plants atter the Letters of AGM (PERS LEGAL) NO PDR/7(8)/2003 DATED 19 06 2003 1n the operating , plants as on today i3. Documents pertams to the employees haying being retired wef 142006to2922008" The respondent company opposed the notice on the ground that the members of the petitioner union are in possession of the appointment order given to the‘employees with the terms and iconditions as incorporated in the apporntment order Other prayer- 1 e 2 & 3 are public documents and the same are available The Labour Court, after having considered the objection of the? I petitioner, dismissed the application on 17.04.2008 (Annexure’ P/5)i with an observation that if the said documents are required in future; the same may be 'summoned at the time ofdisposal ofthe/case. The petitioner uniorn being aggrieved by the order dated 17 04 08 * passed by the Labour Court, preterred an appeal being No M A C s No 14/C(JIR Act/111/2008 before the State Industrial Court Chhatttsgarh, Raipur. The Industrial Court, after having considered the contention made by the parties, upheld the order passed by the Labour Court, holding v TWF t .a ’th‘at if the said documents as required by the petitioner union were rliecessary at the time of adjudication of e matter, the same may be t t éummoned at that point of time. The Tr bunal observed as under : "u§§%ufe—mmwm$€tww%w%mmmw mammmm 17.04.2ouaitmii‘ftmt ’§%ul%a=€anmmaf%amiéa¥aétanamndt eamammmaemawegmmwee iewwumemamlumataymatw Wanmmmw—gcwmumé Wattmmlm—Imawammm’ gmattmumauumf’llwadmmeumi ut?ma‘€t3t$l i 9,. iThe petitioner has impugned the orderf dated 18.07.2008 paseed by ithe State Industrial Court, in this petition, tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. iAfter hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perusingf the pleadings anddocuments appended thereto? it does not appear; _ that there is an error apparent on the records, or-there is irregularityi and perversity writ large in the order. 1'1. It is well settled principle of law that under Article ‘227 of the I l Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provrsrons of law or there is grave failure ofJustice or grave injustice has occasroned thereby urther this court/can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jlirisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity, or illegality‘in the pf0§6ss ofdecision, not in tha decision itself. l2. No case has been made out for inte 'erence with the impugned cider. This petition is accordingly dismi 13; Qonsequently, LA. No. 01, application for grant of interim relief also stands disposed of. i 5 ssed, summarily. 'i l t f H iSd/g P! ,"Satish]l§.Agnihotri J i