<^^@s- y'^>it" RESPONDENTS eiMei t St^1'1'1 ^i^'Si*^'"-''""' //!// 1N THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.fL)No?g7^/2008 Vidyachand Banjara S/o Shri Samam Ram Banjara Through- Sant^shKumar,Advocate Irrigation Colony Darri, Post-Jamnipali, Distt. Korba (C.G) VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. Water Respurces D^pt. D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Executive Engineer Water Respurces Dept. Rampur Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G) /3. Sub Divisional Officer • Hasdav Dai Tat Nahar Sub.- Division No.2, Pantora, Dan-i, Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) Presidmg Officer Underlndustrial DisputeAct Labour Court, Korba (C.G.) ^WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE226&2270FTHE CONSTITICTION OF INDIA mOH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5676 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vidyachand Banjara. VERSUS State ofC.G. & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WfflA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AenihotrLJ, Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri.Advocate for the State/respondentNo. lto3. ORDERfORAn (Passed on 08m day ofMarch, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.04.2008 (Aimexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Korba, incase No lO/TOAct/05 Ref., whereby the claim ofthe petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and in the light of several decisions, the petitioner can not be directed to be reiiistated or regularized. Shri Kale, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits fhat fhe appointjnent of the petitioner is govemed 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 enfitled for grant of retrenchment compensation under the provisions of Section 25F ofthe Act, 1947. He further submits that fhat even provisions of section 250 of the Act, 1947 has also not been considered and the petitioner has been removed &om the service. The Court below without examining the matter on merits and wifhout recording any finding with regard to work of the petitioner as well as other consequential benefits, in a casual and cryptic manner, relymg on various decisions of fhe Supreme court as well as ofthis Court, dismissed the application ofthe petitioner. 4. Shri Kale places his reliaace upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar v. Stae of Haryana . In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed as 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 ofthe materials placed before the Labour Court and in this Court, we are satisfied that the said principle would not apply, m the case on hand. As rightly pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatement with continuity ofservicefor 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 thepreceding 12 months or not. If sufflcient materials are shown that worhnan has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieii ofit in terms ofSection 25F. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has eompleted 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in Ueu 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, inview of the specific factual flnding Vy the Labour Court. " Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, whereui the Court below withouf adverting the factual disputes misunderstood the ratio laid down in the above stated cases and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P/l) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to-consider and decide the case ofthe petitioner afresh in the light of Ramesh Kumar asd other decisions. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- /< Satish K. Aghihotri Judge Aitt-UL.