kwgwmwag w?“ E , wwwmwwuaw ma\wwwwxw wwrknwuwgw A? gwgwm wmg w . gnaw . wgmmmEL m8$3 Wmmgwwmm<mw ag‘wg: mum?Wmrmr o1? 3?; i . E ,2g £§wwwda ¢ww§1maww ummmvgbdzWwEww LQWMMMIMLW is “umwbgwwm‘w; Wavy6% 3&3»? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH {BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3228 OF 2008 (Writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnilhotri, J. Present :- Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.N. Mukherjee, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9‘ day ofApriL 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the transfer orders dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Labour Court, Korba, in case No.1/ iD Act/O6 (Reference), whereby the application of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on dailyswages basis and in the light of severai deeisions, the petitioner cannot be directed to be reinstated or regularized. The appointment of the petitioner is governed under the provisions of Sections 25B & 25F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act, 1957"). If the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months of calendar year, he is entitled for grant of retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Section 25F of I the Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even 25G of the Act, 1947 has also not been considered in view of the fact that juniors to the petitioner have been retained and the petitioner has been removed from the service. The Court below without examining the matter on merits and without recording any finding with regard to work of the petitioner as well as other consequential benefits, in a casual and cryptic manner, relying on various decisions of the Supreme court as well as of this Court, dismissed the application of the petitioner. Shri Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon he decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. t PETITIONER Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal l Versus RESPONDENTS Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & ‘ Others Stae of Haryana In the said decisioh, the Sureme Cour bserved s under: "13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made .in contravention of recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment. However, in View of the materials placed before the Labour Court and in thisCourt, we are Satisfied that the said principle would not apply in the case on hand. As right/y pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity of service for which he is legally‘entitled to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to' be seen is whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months or not. If sufficient materials are shown that workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in, lieu ‘of it was given to him, in such circumstances his termination was illegal. All the decisions relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the case on hand more particularly, in view of the specific factual finding by the Labour Cou Applying the well settled principles of Iaw to the facts of the case on hand, wherein the Court below without adverting the factual disputes misunderstood the ratio Iaid down in the above stated cases and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to consider and decide th ) case of the petitioner afresh in the Iight of Rames’h Ku‘mar (supra e and other decisions. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. order asto Cos 7 7 Sd/_ i Satish K. Agnihotri .Gowri / / 1 2010 AIR scw 897 1. p t o a No st.