$- ^ COURT FEES EXEMPTED BY NOTIFiCATtON N0.906(VD-2S70/XXI- 8W.G./05/AS 6PE&IHED INSCHEDULE & (yTHECOUftTreESACTKTO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (L) N0. 8'^^ /2009 PETITIONER: ?tate of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Kawardha, f^f^ ^ Kabirdham (C.G.) ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ..<"^' .^ •^' Chamru Dhurway, S/o - Rao Singh, Aged about - 52 years, Caste - Gond, R/o - Village 85 Post - Baijalpur, Tahsil - Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHCOURTQFCHHATTISGARHATBrLASPUR PETmONER WRIT PETmON<L) No. 2312 of2009 State ofChhattisgarh. VER8US RE8PONDENT8 Chamm Dhurwav & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFESIDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SatNi K. Agnihotei, J. Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/ petitioner. Shri Ajit Smgh, Advocate for ttie respondent No. 1. ORDER^«MIAD - , (Passed on 07m day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner-State challenges the legality and validity ofthe award dated 20.06.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Labour Court, Rajnaiidgaon in Case No. 102/U)/2007(Ref), whereby, the Labour Court, held that the retrenchment ofthe respondent No. 1 was ordered without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'). 2. The Court below has categorically recorded fhat fhe respondent No. 1 had worked fbr more thaii 240 days ia fhe precedmg year as required under section 25-B ofthe Act, 1947. Therefbre, the ^nployer was under an obligation to comply with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 which was not done m the case. Accordingly, an order ofreinstatement without backwages was passed 3. Contention of Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the State/petitioner fhat since the petitioner was a daily wager and as such, fhe provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not applwable, was considered by the Court below. The Labour Court has come to a clear conclusion that the respondent, being a workman, was in a continuous service for more than 240 days in the preceding year and as such, provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 are applicable. ^.^:;y%, .^ /\r^ 1 '"^iis^ j \.^sr; ^^^"' Iws^uawiNs^- There is no dispute fhat fhere was no compliance oftiie provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947. 4. The lurther contention of Shri Dubey that the claim ofthe regpondent was belated as cause ofaction arose mthe year 1999 and after 8 yeai^, the respondeot No* 1 had approached tfie Labour Court for settlem@nt ofthe dispute, deserves to be rejected as it is weli settled law that m case ofthe mdustrial disputes, no limitation is applicable. 5. This Court, m Ram Kumar Sury^anshi v. State ofChhatttsgarh & Others1^ while considering the que^tion of delay, observed that prejydice has also to be considered particularly in the fact tfaat the provisions ofthe Limitation Act are not applicable to (he provisions of theAct,1947. 6. In the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketmg-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anothe^, the Supreme Court obsenred as under: <<fl0....the provisions ofArtide 137 ofthe Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 ai'e xiot applicabl^ to fhe proceedings under the Act and that tfae relief under it caimot be denicd to the workman m^ely on the ground of dday. The plea of delay ifraised by fhe employer is requircd to te proved as a matter offact by showing fhe real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioiied on the gi'ound ofdelay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existmg, the Tribuxial., Labow Court, or Board, dealmg with the case can appropriately mould fhe reliefby declinitig to graiit back wages to the workmasi till the date he raised fhe desiiand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ temiination or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part ofthe back wages in&lead offtill back wages./' 7. This dictum was followed subsequently in the cases ofGurmail Smgh v. Principal, Govt College ofEducation <6 Other/ ^nd SM.Nilajkar & Others v. Teiecom District Manager, Karnataka. ' 2006 LT(CG) 135 2 (1999) 6 SC 82 3 (2000) 9 SCC 496 :^y?T;5%.-.,. !:-&is!^ ^-^^': t^^-^'",-^" '^^s^" 8. It is a trite law that fhe Highi Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue of writ ofcertiorari or supen^isoryjurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, wouldnot convert itselfmto a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or con'ect errors m drawing mterences or correct errors ofmCTeformalor technical character. 9. In the case on haxid, no Jurisdictional error, infirmity or iiregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, is not inclmed to interfere with the impugaed order which is legal, just and proper. (See Abdul R(sak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others4 and SMlini Shyam Shetly & Another v. Rajen^'a Shankar Patil5. lO.Applying Ifae well settled principles of law to ftie facts ofthe case. no interference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order asto costs. Axmt Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 201OAIRSCW 1414 . 5 (2010) 8 SCC 329