^ll^V--^ y^i^Nl. C^^^s^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. ^^5s /2010 / -^l^ PETITIONERS : 1. Roopchand, s/o Tulsi Rahy, aged about (First Party/Applicants) 40 years, R/o Village Silpatti, Tahsl Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / 2. Kriparam, S/o Bhukhan Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Silpatti, Tahsil Chuikhadan, district Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4?<-^/ w \^tv ^?^ ..^y" ^-- •t^' .^' -/ 3. Mukesh, s/o Shiv Kumar Patel, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Silpatti, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ 4. Kaviram, s/o Tulsi Ram, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Silpatti, Tahsl Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / 5. Manik, S/o Bije, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Gopalpur, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (Non Appticants) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) / Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chuikh.adan, Pipariya Jalashaya, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^l^ 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipariya Jalashaya, Water Resources Department, Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTtON OF INDIA. -^• fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SJB: Hon'Me Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (U No. 2850/2010 PETITIONER8 : Roopchand and others Versus RESPONDENTS : The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon and trfhers Aooearance: Shri Anoop Majumdar, eounsel for the petitioners. ORALORDER (25.06.2010) Heard Shri Anoop Majumdar, teamed eounsel for the petitioners on the question of admission. By the impugned award dated 28/03/09, the Labour Court has directed that the petitioners be engaged as daily wagers, as and when work is available. (2) The petitioners raised a dispute about their illegal retrenchment, which was referred for adjudicatioii to Ihe Labour Court. (3) In pam 5 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that petitioner Roopchand had worked in tiie year 1986, Kriparam 1988 to 1990, Mukesh in 1986, Katoam in 1986 and Manik from 1989 to 1993. There is no finding that any ofthe petitioners have worked thereafter. The Labour Court has also not recorded any finding as to whether the petitioners have worked for a ^'iIltlJBii1 ^ period of240 days in a calendar year immediately prececfing the date on which they were allegedly retrenched. (4) In the absence of any such fin<Mng about any oflhe petitioner having Worked for a period of 240 days in a calaidar year, fhere camiot be an order of reinstatement as prayed by leamed counsel for the petitioners. (5) There is no substance in tfhe writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge