AFf^ 'y. ^'ofe IIXCTH <.XMJ8:r OF CHB,A:f"l:'ISCxA.R;H AT BIIASFUR WRlTPE'n'riON (L) No. 1924 of2008 PETITIONER NON-APPLICANTS RESPQNDENTS APPLICANT 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Executive EiigisieCT,. Water Resources Cosistmctioii Division, Kasdol, Distt. Raipw (Cliliattisgarh) 2. Sub Dlvisional Officer, Balar Canal Sub Divisiodi, Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). \rERSUS Dharamlal, S/o Ramji, R/o Semariya, Post Kosamsara, Tateil - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (Chbattisgarh) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Stari Satish K. Agmliotri, J. Present: Shri U.N.S,Deo, Govenmient Advocate fbr the petitioners/State. ORALQRDER (Passed on 01st day of April, 2008) This petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Comtitution of India impugns the validity ofthe order dated 13th November, 2006 passed by fhe State Indiistrial Court, Chhattisgarh m Civil App^al No. 40/C.G.I.R.Act/A-l 1/2006 (Annexure P/l) and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur (Annexure P/3). The main issue invoh^ed m tihis case was as to whefher fhe responde$rt was entitled to benetits of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Aet, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1947'). The Labour Court, after having examined the case ofthe reBponderrt herein, held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days m fhe preceeding year fhus, tte responderrt could 3xrt have beeii retrenched/removed without fbllowmg provisions ofsection 25F ofthe Act 1947. The petitioner herein i.e. the State contested fhe case 011 the ^•ound that the petitioner was a temporary employee, biit did not rebut @ ttiie factual position thM the respondent had worked for more than 240 days m the preceeding year. Acceptmg the factual position- the Labour Court by order dated 12.04.2006 lield that the respondeiit was tiot retrenched/removed in accordance with section 25F of the Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement without back wages. ^The petitioner-State preferred an appeal befbre fhe State Industrial Court an<$ vide order dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure P/l)the leamed Industrial Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Labour Court and held that admittedly- the provisions of section 25F of the Act^ 1947 was not followed before discontirmation ofservice ofthe respondent. Furtfaer, it is w^t a case of regularisation. Having heard leamed counsel for fhe petition^r and gcme throu^bi the pleadmgs and documents appended theretoy it m evident that the respondent was fbunid to liave completed mandatory 240 days servic^e to attract applicability ofprovisions ofsection 25F ofthe Act, 1947. He was retrenched/removed from the service. It $s also admitted that the provisiom ofsection 25F offhe Act, 1947 was not complied witti. Ijsamed counsel disputes the woricing of fhe respondent for 240 days but he has not contested the same befbre the Courts below. With regard to noo-compliance ofthe provisions ofsection 25F, there is no disprte. In view ofthe above, there m no merit m ttiis case, Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge Amit