IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAspUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION ( L ) No. §SL/ 2008 PETITIONER: / STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH: DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PRODUCTION FOREST DIVISION, MAHANADI, PANDRI, RAIPUR, TAHSIL AND F DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) ...... ’- '-" . “ RESPONDENTS: CONDUCTOR OF GOVERNMENT TRUCK, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR (CG). /2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, RAIPUR (CG) AWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VERSUS I1. LAXMAN, S/O BHAGWAT KAMDE, Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition Q! No. 552 of2008 RESPO§QE§J§ : 1. Laxman Sfo Bhagwat Kamde, Conductor of Govemment (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) ‘\ resent : Shri AS. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agg'gotn', J.) None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passeii on 2.8-“; ofJanuary, 2008) by the onier dated 24.03.2006 (Annexure P/l), whereby learned Labour Court, aiier having considered the facts, allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 and granted 4O percent back wages. 2. Shri AS. Kachhwaha, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner/State contends that the appoiritment of the respondent No.1 was on temporary basis. However, the petitioner has failed to produce a copy of the appointment order of the respondent No. l. The second contention of learned counsel is that grant of40 percent back wages is exorbitant. Learned Labour (hurt, aher having considered the facts came to the conclusion that the respondent No. l has established the fact that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. Further, the respondent had produced sumcient evidence and documents to establish J?V that his appointment was not in the nature oftemporary appointment Learned Labour Judge has tin-their noted that despite several opportunities . granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to rebut documentary r v vi J‘ 1. The petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh have tiled this petition, being aggieved :F r N P £ETITION§I$ State of Chhattisgarh Through: Divisional Forest and Production District Forest Division, Mahamdi Pandn', Raipur, Raipur (CG). order is walrantgd, .‘ Thus, petition is accordingly dismissed, summaxily. No order asto costs ‘ ‘ r Satish K.Agnihotn Sd/— ' i7 ; Judge 6