(3)5(aaL‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘WRIT PETITIONlglNo. 6/ mag? PETITIDNER v3 @é’lik Ram Pradhan Q S/o Shri Sonuram, Aged about 43 years, Occupation - Helper, Public Works Department, Raigarh, R/o Village Juda, District Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Raigarh, Tehsil and District - Raigarh (CG) 2., Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Raigarh, Tehsil and District - Raigarh (CG) 3./ Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Raigarh, Tehsil and District - Raigarh (C.Gr) 4.(_ Presiding Officer State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, ”'Raipur,iTah. and Dist. Raigarh(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l. M PARTICULARS. OF THE PETITIONER : As stated in the cause title above RTS ESPONDEN 1., / A3 . / Petitioner Salik RamJPradhan Vel§U§ Th9 sate of Chhmsgath and others Pge gm. : M_r RakeshAnthony‘, counseikfor the pegmner. No.1 Ms. sunka to 3. Jain, Panel ‘ Lawyer fat the State/respondents ORDEB“ (Passed on 15‘ Day oi January,’2007) The petitioner was appointed as Labour in thayear 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was postedvas Helper on 27-34897 Vin the omce of the Sub-Divisional-Omcer, Public Worla/Depattmem, Raigam. The petitioner was not paid salary of the pest of Helper. Aceordingly he tiled en application under Section 31(3) of the MadhyaePradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court; Bilaspm. The Labour Court. by judgment and order dated 14-1-2000. allowed the application partly to the extent thaHhe pehtloner‘ would: be entitled to salary for the periodhehadworked as Helper. 2. seing aggrieved; the peh'tioner tiled: an appeal‘ under Section 65 of the Madhya Pradeeh Industrial Disputes-Act aleng with an _ . 8@ appiication for condonation of delay. Learned industtial‘ Court. Banch at Raipur. ate: considering all the reasons for oondonation of: delay, by order dated 18-5-2001 in Civil Appeal No.241/MPIR AcuAmmOOO. came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not make out a case for condoning the delay. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner tiled e writ petition. being Writ Petition No.2149 of 2001. against the order dated 18-5-2001 passed by the industrial Court, Bench at Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.241/MPIR AclIA(ii)/2000. This Court. by order dated, 3-2'2006. allowed Writ Pediion No.2149 of 2001 and quashed the order dated 18- 5-2001 passed by ll'ie industrial Court, Bench at Ralpur. The matter was ordered to be remitted back to the industrial Courtfor decision on merit. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 20-1 1-2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State-Industrial Court. Raipur dismissing Civil Appeai No.241ICGlRAotIA4ll20W. 5. The Industrial Court. in appeal, has considered the facts in detail. lt was held that the petitioner wasfa daily wager employee and as such in the light of the settled posidon of law me petitioner. being a daily wager employee. has no right to regularisation. 6. l have gone through the judgment and order passed by the industrial Court. impugned herein. There is no jurisdictional error or intirmity. The reasons and finding recorded by d'ie Court below are unexceptionable. Thus, no interferencg is warranted in this petition under Atticia'227 of the Constitution of India. 7. As a resuit. for the reasons stated harainabove, this petition is dismissed- NO ordar as to new. / a a; Sdl‘ ' ; Satish K. Agmhotrn Judge # f\5