AFf^ S~7^ HIGH COURT OF CHjhlATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRST PETITION N0.4195 OF 2006 Karmu Ram Versus District Mahila Avam Bal Wkas Officer & Others Post fbr pronouncement of the judgment & orda- on 6 dw of July, 2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge c- ^ I* IRiS^3E£;LiSna.d!Mfajiuujaa6i-'. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGAIW : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.4195 OF2006 PETITIONER Karmu Ram, S/o Manihar Ram, Ex. Jeep Driver, Mahila Avam Bal Vitas Vibhag, Ambikapur, Village Sonpurkaia, Post Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus 1. District Mahita Avam Bal Vikas OfRcer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG). 2. Project Officer, Mahila Avam Balvikas Bairampur,District Sarguja (CG). 3. Labour Court (Industrial Dispute Act), Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General with Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyerfor the State. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Passed on this <9 dav of July, 2009) Heard iearned counsel for the Darties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chailenge the legality and validity of ttie ^rder dated 1-3-2006 (Annexure - P/4) passed by the Labour Court, Ambikapur, in case No.94/ID Ast/2004 Ref., whereby the clsimof the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner-atso seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to join in i service on the post of Jeep Drwer. The indisputabte facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initiatly the petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver by order dated 8-5-1998 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 herein, on dally wages basis for a pertod of 89 days. Thereafter, from time t6 time, by severat orders* the service period of fte ' petitioner w;as extended till 24-5-2001. According to the petitioner, the petitionei; rendered his services in the respondent Department for ^Sss..^ i ^S^, j: ^ J' about four years without any gap i.e. for the period from 8-5-19^ to 16-9-2002 with utmost satefaction of his highsr authorfties and there is no complaint against him. However, on 16-9-2002, all of a sudden the respondent No.2 orally terminated the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner flled an application before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Gommissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court, on 1-3-2004 (Annexure - P/2). Before the Labour Court the petiUoner filed statement of claim. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the psUtioner by order dated 1-3-2006 (Annexure - P/4). Thus, this petition. 4. Shri Prajapati, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court without appreciating the facte and circumstances of the ease in its letterand spirit rejected'the ctaim of the petitioner. The petitioner rendered his services in the respondent Department without any gap for about four years i.e. for more than 240 days. Learned counsel would furttier submit ttiat without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without issuing show cause notlce the petitioner has been removed from the service, which is against the principtes of natural justice. Learned counsel prays that ttie respondent authorities may be directed to allow the petitioner to join ttie ssrviceon the post of Jeep Driver. 5; i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and the documente appended thereto. 6. Admittedlythe petitioner was never appointed in accordance witti the constitutional scheme of employment, as the appointment of the petitioner was not through proper selection process. Without inviting applications from the eligible candidates the petitioner has been ./ 1* appointed on daily wages basls for a period of 89 days and lookii^ to the requirement of ?fervice of the petitioner the same was extended from time to time for 89 days (Annexure - P/1 colly.). The c- 7 «2,-a '• 'S-. •a Y ^-^'J '-\. ^ •'*'*'-"- _/*.•' '~^S-,-.. .-,..-r'^ '^^^-v^^ 8. 9. appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with tte constitutional scheme of employmenfc It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been retrenched without granUng retrenchment attowance under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ffte Act, 194T}. It is also not further case of the petitionerthat the petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit under the provisions of Section 25-F of th®Act, 1947. However, on perusat of the pleadings and the impugned order, it appears that the tearned Labour Court has not considered and recorded any finding with regard to the issue asto whether the petitioner had worked for 240 days or more in a year or in the preceding year before the petitioner was removed from service and further whether ttie petitioner was entifled to retrenchment ailowance or not. In view of foregoing, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court restoring the case to the original file with a direction that the Labour Court shall consider the issue afresh, as stated above, and pass ^ppropriate orders, in accordance with law. Havjpg regard to the facts situation of the case, when the matter is pending eonsideration since March. 2004 it is exoedient that the Labour Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferabty within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis orcter. !n the result, the petitioR is allowed to the above extent. No order asto cests. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 8 -7-2009 ^3 'B c- ^ .^' "f-