6 l/2^/^..^--ife l..H%r^" ^.•••••i^y^KS--y''~ ,, .. !ft- s3^s^^S3r-^--"""' P,^^B^.^.-K!^'°';.':''•';:',.;; ,/fcA *'*' ·siii.tr 7/17/ IN THE fflGH COUKT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BBLASPUR W. Ra.yNo^l^ 72011 :^ PETITIONER REPONDENTS : ^' SureshKumarKshafriya S/oLaxmanSingh Kshtriya,agedabout43years, R^Antagarh,Kanker(G.G) VERSUS .- : :'. . ^..-•SN&of'e.G..;'':':1. •:••',';' Through-Seeretary WaterResourcesDept. D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur(e.G) 2. DeputyDireetorGeneral ^ Meter6lQgicalE>ept.("Weatherforecasting) StateDataCentre,Si]"iayaBhawan, CivilLines,Raipur(G.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226&227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitiorierbegstosubmita&yhder- 1. Particulars oftlie Petitioher: As shown in the cause title. 2. ParticularsxiftheIlesDbndents: Asshown inthe causetitle. 3. ParticularoftheoMeraeamstwluclijthiSPetitioriismade: ^ Being agrievedbytheawarddt: 26.08 whereby Ld. LabourCourtdismissthecaseofPetitiorierandheldfhattermination QfPetitioherislegalaM^proper.Theorderdt. 26.08.M here.as AhnexureP^/';'•••.::;'.^ •' ^l iil! ;^|ig^fi(lsrFt: :K"|lf"8"l37)1 i^;iWifeW yfflUt»*w W5Hc^,SS £SS. iiiSSKaiaiiSBsiSS :\. .-^' HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH; BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (L) N0. 2385 OF 2011 Suresh Kumar Kshatriya RESPONDENTS Versus State of C.G. & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 of the Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K.Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SatishGupta, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 05th day of May, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition, is to the award dated 26.08.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jagdalpur, in Civil Case No.39/IDA (Ref:)/2004. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not paid retrenGhmentcompenSation, as contemplated under Section 25F ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for.short"the IDA"). Thus, the award bf the Labour Court, rejecting the reference is illegal. 3. Indisputably, the petitioner, being a daily-wager, was disengaged from service byorderdated 31.01.2000. Thereafter.aftera period of three years, a dispute was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, by order dated 22.09.2004referredthe dispute fo the Labour Court, on the question asto firstly, whetherthe application after a period ofthree years from the date of removal from service was maintainable; secondly, ifyes, what reliefthe petitioner is entitled to. l.iil^ffil iil:l)4i£^wlrii^isii^^^B^&isS .^-^%y ;&''SgS^:fe:3S^ws^u--i^;sS:£i:-><£S;i:;%' Ashok; The Labour Court examined both the issues and ori the issue No.1, he came to theconclusion thateven after a period ofthree years from the date of removal of the petitioner from service, the application was maintainable. However, on the issue No.2, the Labour Courtdid not recordthe finding that the petitioner has established that he had worked for 240 days in a year, particularly in the preceding year. However, it was foundthat the petitioner was granted onemonth notice in lieu of retrenchment compensation. Thus, theorder was justandproper. It is a trite law that the provisions ofSection 25F ofthe IDA would beapplicableonly in case, the petitioner has established that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. For want offinding, that the petitioner has established working for 240 days in the preceding year, provisions of 25F is not attracted. Thus, whether the retrenChment corripensatidn was paid or one month notice in lieuofthe compensation was made is irrelevant, as the petitioner has failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding y^ar. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no meritin this case and petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Saitisfa K. Agnihotri Judge ^ij%^^%- SSsSXSSi 'i^^'s