N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL WRIT PETITION (L) NO 5‘ 5 5 OF 2o 10 ,r PETITIQNER ‘RESHQHHHNTS ’V ,_ L/ 1 / D111p Kumar Shanna S/o aged i I ’R/ o , Pos’t:s_onpuri; ,Damodar Shanna, ' 33 about years, ' Bhimpuri, r D‘Istt kabirdkam (CG; =‘ S-Uis' VER taite’ ofChha’tfisgiairh HI roiigh I " Secretary Forest Deggrtment ? D K S Bhawan, Ralpur‘ lstr1ct—,. v I ”Ralpumcm, " ' _ D‘.F.0., y I Ibivis'ioxig, ,_ Kawar‘dha, (CG). :Fo‘re'st ‘ V‘ ms“- “Kabiréw *, ' PreSIdmg Officer, 3 _ _ Undcr I D Act LabQur Court I, D G_.)V h mmot Rajnondgaon (C.‘ I Ag f S " ” ‘ H AT BIPUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR LAS WRIT PETITION (L) N0. 5155 of 2 0 0 1' PETITIONER Dilip Km Sha. uar arm’ VERSUS tate of attlsgar & S Chhh Others RI ETITION R ATICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDI _ e S K Ah, hn Satlsh gmotrl Pt: resen hrl Suml‘ ahu, Advocate for the petltlone S r hn Satlsh Gupta’Government Advocate for te State , espondent No ORDER ORAL Passed on 08 da of Arl ‘201 1 ‘ V _;( y p ) passe o /ID under the r0, 1s1ons of the Industrlal Dlsputes Act 1947 has been rejected tshell :ar‘ that the pet s ltloner wa 1rel s Operator on da11‘ wag ” I ‘ . ls serv1ces were dlscontlnued Alh he ongwrt t rov1s1ons o ner “Agams n before th ftek 'havm nclus10n tat d thereafte provrsrons of secuon 25-F of the Act 1947 was als ed w1th Thus be held Accordmgly, the rehef sought for by the petltloner e before th \ mo ths salary as requlred under the p f sec Ion 25-F of the Act 1947 was pald to the p‘ t1t1o 't the order of removal the petltloner filed an appllcatlo e Labour Court Rajnandgaon The Labour Court a g con51dered all the aspects of the matter came to the co h r the pet1t1oner had worked for 240 days 1n a year an r, L o comph RESPONDENTS WT P UNDE R A S h / r 1 , 2010 d‘ “by the Labour Court Rajnandgaon m fAct/2008/Ref whereby the calm of the pet't'oner ase N 84, ‘ The mdlsputable facts 1n " " the dls gagement cann, \ respondent-State, befbre disengagement of the petitioner, no fault can be found with the order of disengagement dated 18.02.2000. There is no infirmity .or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Othersl‘, Kobserved as under: i “21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts have passed orders in exercise ofpower under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution g 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 aure the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refrain jrom deciding the' writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as. if they are adjudicating appeals filedagainst 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 z. n the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity as been pointedout. 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 of law to the facts of the case, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. ’ There shall be no order asto costs. I / 12010 AIR SCW 1414 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329 p Patil I h