(’ T’$%M;Z£ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR - w.P.(s1 No.35M OF zoos PETITIONER /‘ M. Rafiq Memon, ‘ S/o Late Shri A.K. Memon, Agd about 42 years, Steno Typist, Labour Court, Bilaspur (CG), ‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS / l. ‘ State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralay‘a, DKS ’Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) The President CG Industrial Court, Ghari Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) CG Industrial Court, I Through Registrar, CG Industrial Court, Ghari Cho'wk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) WRIT ?ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTI’JN OF INDIA Cg? g HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3944 of2008 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA SB: Hon’hie Shri Satish K. Agnihou'i. J. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate far the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the Statekespondent No. 1and2. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 11 day of July, 2011) I. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05.07.2008 (Annexure PfS) whereby the petitioner, working as Stem-Typist has been transferred 00m Labour Oourt, Bilaspur, to Labour Court, Jagdalpur by the State Government. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the President, Industrial Court, ofthe then Stale ofMadhya Pradesh on 27.06. 1985 (Annexure P/l), at Labour Court, Bilaspur. Thereamr, without having jurisdiction, the State has passed the impugied transfer order. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and vitiated on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the incompetent ohicer. 3. On the other hand, Shri Bhadun‘, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the Labour Court has been created by the State Government, thus, the State Government has hill competence to transfer an employee lirom one place to another place. PETITIONER : M. Rafiq Memon. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of-Chhattisgarh & Others. Cw a 4. The above contention of the State counsel deserves to be rejected at the threshold as appointment order of the petitioner was issued by the president, Industrial Court, and not by the State Government. Admittedly, the head of the department is me President, Industrial Court as the appointing authority is not the State Govemment. This fact is clear ti‘om Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Labour Judiciary (Class III Non-Gazetted Service) Recmitment Rules, 1965 which clearly provides thm all amointment to the service alter commencement ofthe Rules shall be made by the Head of the Department. It is not the case of the State Government that the Under Secretary is the Head of the Department of‘the Labour Court» Thus, it is well established that the appointing authority as well as the head of the department of the employees ofthe Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court is the President, Industrial Court and not the State Government, as pleaded by the State counsel. 5. In View of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 05.07.2008 (Annexure P/5) is unsustainable and is quashed. 6. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. If ‘ 17-3 Sdl’ ,l V » 7/.” Satish K- Agmmtri /. Judge /,‘/‘