BE?'7"?- '•^•'^•.i EL^^,i; • t.^ x^{°y ..••""'.^e'A.N-'' ^y ?^J.lf' .••'" '^'.'.s'^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition (L) No. _A6_^_/2007. Petitioner: Respondent:: State ofChhattisgarh, Through Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Kondagaon District Bastar (CG). Versus Rajauram Sahu, S/o Ramau Ram, R/o village Surdongar (Harra-Padav) Tahsil Keshkal District Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA8PUR WRTT PETmON (L) No. 1603 of2007 PETmONER : StateofChhattisgarii. VER.SU8 RESPONDENT : RajauramSahu. WRTT PE'n-nON UNDER ARTtCLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA : - SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnfliotri. J. Rresent: Shri Sushil Dubey, Advoeate for the petitioner. Sfari H.B.Ag-awal, Senior Advocate witii Snrt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate fbr the respMidetrt. ORDERCQRAL) (Passed on 06 day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner-State challenges fhe legality aad validity ofthe award dated 04.05.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Jagdalpur in Civil Case No. 34/l/(Ret)2004, whereby, Ifae Labour Court, held that tfae retrenchment of the respondent was wdered wifliout complying with the provisions ofseetion 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (fw shorttheAct,1947'). 2. The Court below has categorically recarded that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the precediug year as required under section 25-B ofthe Act, 1947. Thereafter, Ifae anployer was under an obligation to comply with the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Aet, 1947 which was not done in the case. Accordu®ly,ai order of reinstatement without backwages was passed 3. Coirtention of Shri Dubey, leamed eounsel aiyearing for the State/petitioner that since the petitioner was a casual labour and as such, the provisions of section 25-F of tfae Act, 1937 was tKrt r" ^l.^ ^ VL^. "^^S'J': Amit applicable, was considered by the Court below. The Labour Court has ; come to a clear conclusiai that the respoadent, being a workman, was ia a continuous service for more than 240 days in the preceding year and as such, provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1943 are applicable. There is no dispute that Ihere was uo eonyliance oftfae . provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947. 4. It is a trite law that fhe High Court, in exercise of its jurisdietion for issue of writ ofcertiorari or supervisoryjurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, wouldnot convert itselfintoacourtof appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidenee or correct errors in drawmg inferences or correct errors ofmere formal or technical character. 5. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, mfirnuty or irregularity has been pointed out.Thus, Ifais Court, in exereise ofitspowermideri Article 226 and 227 offhe Constitution of India, is not iaclined to ; interfere with the impupied order which is legal, just aad proper. (See Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagte & Other^ and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shcailwr Patil2 r . 6. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts oflfae case, no . mterference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2010 AIRSCW 1414 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329