./? ^v •1 HON'BLE^S^B, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,-»„. £6^. WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^- /2010 PETITIONER: Milau Ram, S/o Shri Itwari Ram, Aged about 42 years, Post- Driver, C.I.D.C., Jagdalpur Unit, C.G. R/o Pachpedi Naka, Sarvodeya Nagar, Near Sheetal Mandir, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. RESPONDENTS: ^) v^^'y ..' ^^^ ^y VERSUS /-'l. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, (Transport Division), Through the Managing Director, Near Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. The Depot Manager, New Bus stand, Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. PETITION UNDER ARTICU &227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CS) No. 6608 of2010 PETITIONER : MilauRam. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh In&astructure Development Corporation & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnjhptri.J. Present: Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 21st day of January, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 03.01.2006, passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, in civil Appeal No. 57/CGIR AcVA-II/2004, whereby the order dated 04.03.2004, passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, in Civil Case N9./A/33/MPIR/1/03, has been set aside holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 2. Shri Dewangan, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, after appreciation ofthe evidences, had rightly come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the petitioner was found illegal. He further submits that the order of the learned Labour Court dated 04.03.2004 has been reversed on an appeal being filed by the respondent No. 1, before the leamed Industrial Court, vide order dated 03.01.2006. Shri Dewangan next submits that learned Industrial Court has erred by holding that the petitioner could not prove his case that he had worked for a period of 240 days. It was for the employer to produce the relevant documents to prove or to rebut the claim of the petitioner asto whether he had worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding year. 3. On pemsal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure P/l) the aforesaid contention of the petitioner has been dealt in FL 'v. S|,1 """y./ sf" f ..•^:-° s» y v mat 7. detail wherein the Industrial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the onus was on the petitioner to prove his case that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year and has reversed the finding ofthe Labour Court. Even other wise, no jurisdictional error, infumity or irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order. The Supreme Coiirt, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts have passed orders in exercise ofpower under Articles 226 or 227 offhe Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refi-ain firom deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution as if they are adjudjcating appeals filed against the orders of the lower courts or other judicial/quasi-judicial bodies/authorities." The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patif-. In the case on hand, nojurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe case, no interference is warranted.'Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK-Aga^01" Judge * 2010 AIRSCW 1414 2 (2010) 8 S-CC 329