*-• COURf FEES EXEMPTED^ e^NoTtFiwiONWa9WOT^^- COT.6'ro»AS'sreC|FtEDWSCHtDU^ '&u"OF'fHECOURT FEES ACT 1870 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (L) N0. <L| 6^3 /2010 PBTITIONERS ^f ,/"" State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG.) (The petitioner no. 1 was not a party before the leamed Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner no. 1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Govemment through the Secretary of the concemed department) Department of Water Resources, through the Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Bayi Tat Nahar, Division No. 4, Seoni, District Janjgir Champa (CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Teereth Ram Karsh, Aged about 49 years, S/o Dharaniram Karsh, Former Helper, Address Village Pachauri, Post Afarid, Tah. Champa, District Janjgir Champa. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M!' • Bi A-F^ S -t-i HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (L) No. 5463 of2010 PETmONER : StateofChhattisgarfi&Another. VERSUS IUESPONDENT : Teereth Ram Karsh. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Steri Sattsh K. Aenihotri. J. Preseiit: Shri Sushil Dubey, Advoeate for the petitionas. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advoeate for the respondent ORDER(ORA1,) (Passed on 06 day of Janiiary, 2011) 1. Ilie petitioner-State challenges the legality and validity ofthe award dated 31.03.2010, passed bythe Labour Court, Jagdalpur in Case No. 35/IDA/09(R.ef), whereby, the Labour Court, held that the retrenchment ofthe respondent was ordered without complying with the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act, 1947'). 2. The Court below has categorically recorded that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year as required under section 25-B offhe Act, 1947. Thereatter, the employer was under an obligation to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 which was not done in the case. Accordingly, an order of reinstatement without backwages was passed. 3. Contention of Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the State/petitioner that since fhe petitioner was a casual labour and as such, the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1937 was not applicable, was considered by the Court below. The Labour Court faas come to a clear conclusion that the respondent, being a workman, was in a eontmuous service for more than 240 days in the preceding year and as such, provisions of section 25-F of fhe Act, 1947 are applicable. There is no dispute that there was no compliance of the proyisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947. '" € ^"^ -A '^ •C's&^ 1 'i\• ^ 4. The farther contention of Shri Dubey tiiat the claim ofthe respondent was belated as cause of action arose in the year 1996 and after 14 years, the respondent had approached the Labour Court for settlement ofthe dispute, deserves to be rejected as it is well settled law that in case ofthe industrial disputes, no limitatioa is applicable. 5. This Court, in Ram Kumar Suryvanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, while considering the question of delay, observed that prejudice has also to be considered particularly in the fact that the provisions ofthe Limitation Act are not applicable to the provisions of the Act, 1947. 6. In the case of Aj'aib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Sery'ce Society Ltd. & Anothe^, the Supreme Court observed as under: "10....theprovisions ofArticle 137 ofthe Schedule to the Liimtation Act, 1963 are aot applicable to ttie proceedings under the Act aad that the relief under it eaanot be denied to the worianan merely on the ground ofdelay. The plea ofdelay ifraised by tiie employer is required to be proved as a matter offact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypqlhetical defeaee. No reference to the Labour Court can be geaerally questioned on the ground ofdelay alone. Evea in a case where the delay is Aown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court, or Board, dealing wifh the eas® can appropriately mould the reUef by declming to graiit back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regardihg his illegal retrenehmart/ termiaation or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment ofpart ofthe back wages instead offull back wages.." 7. This dictum was followed subsequently in the cases ofGurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. College ofEducation & Other/ and SM.Nibsjkar & Others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka. 8. It is a Irite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue of writ ofcertiorari or supervisoryjurisdiction under Artiele 227 of flie Constitution of India, would not convert itself into a court of ' 2006 LT(CG) 135 2 (1999) 6 SC 82 3 (2000) 9 SCC 496 Aiilt 3 appeal and indulge in reappredation or evaluation of evidence or con-ect errois in drawing mferences or correct errors ofmere fonnal or technical character. 9. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in essercise ofits po'wer under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India, is not incliaed to mterfere with the impugned order whieh is legal, just and proper. (See Abdul RcE.ak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Uagle i& Others and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. P.ajendra Shankar Patils. lO.Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the faets oflfae case, no interference is wairanted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotr Judge 4 2010 AIRSCW 1414 '(2010) 8 SCC 329