IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fU No. 2333 of 2008 Petitioner Employer, Daituk Desh Bandhu Samachar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Presidiag Officer, Labour Court, under Industrial Disputs- Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Oin Prakash Gaagotri, Adhyaksh, Lal Jhaada Majdoor Union Dayalbatid, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Kislian KuLmar Gupta, S/o Late S. P. Gupta, asge about 36 yrs, R/o Opposite Patel Ladies Taflor, New Sarkaada, Bilaspiu- (C.G.) WRrr^OT!TIQN_UNDER_ARTIC1,j^226_&227_PJTTHE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotn J.) Shri S. P. Kale, Advocate for fhe petitioner. None for the respondent No.2 despite service ofaotice. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advcuate for fhe respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this 28th Day ofApril, 2009) The petitioner impugns fhe order dated 8.1.2003 (Aanexure P/7), passed by the Laboiir Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 51/I.D.A/98(Ref.). Shri S. P. Kale, leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that fhe relief cannot be graated to tbe respondent No.3, as ftie dispute was raised by the respondent No.2, not by the respondent No.3. The provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 woiild not be appUcabIe iu the present case, as the petitioner was worldag ia the petitioner-press, as such, the provisions of tfae Workuig JoumaUsts and other Newspaper Einployees (Conditions of Service) aad Miscellaneous ^ "^> •2-- Provisions Act, 1955 would be appUcable. There was a case of fheft against the respondent No.3 and the respondeut No.3 was not rem.oved by the petitioner-press but he himselfleft the service on his own. Despite seryice of notice fhe respondent No,2 remained uarepresented throughout. Shri Viaod DeshinuKh, leamed counsel appearfag for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 was appoiated ou 1.5.1991. Thereafter, he continued to work tiU 5.12.1996. The respondent No.3 became entifled to declaration of pennanent status after coinpletion of five years of service. Renioval ofthe respondent No.3 on ttie alleged grouad offheft, ia view of fh.e fact fhat fhere was no poUce coinplaint, the impugued oider is just aud proper and warrants no uiterference. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties aad having perused the pleadiags and documents appended thereto, it appears fhat the Labour Court has passed the iuipugtied award iu a veiy casual maiuier. The Court below has not recorded axiy findiag with regard to the nature of appointinent and when fhe respondent No.3 was appoiated. Secondly, whether the tenniaation./removal order was passed oraUy or ia writing, on the ground of aUeged theft aUegedly cominitfced by the respondent No.3. The Labour Court has passed fhe award without recordiag ftie fiiidings, which are relevant for grant of relief iu favour of a party. .,>"": •"--: ^ '..f'—Si'**. y:|[ "•! "t j ^!S|!||t,, 's. I?1 J 8'-,. "' / " 3- 6 . Thus, the impugned award dated 8.1.2003 deserves to be and is set aside. The aiatter is remaaded back to fhe Labour Court with a direction to decide fhe dispute raised before it after recording a categorical finding iu respect ofappointinent ofthe petitioner, iiature of atlegation aud the date of the renioval/temimation order, if any, passed in writing or inade oratly. The award shaU be passed afi^esh, after affordmg aa opportunity of hearmg to both the parties. 7. Having regard to the fact that fhe dispute was raised on 7.10.1998, the Labour Court is directed to cousider aad decide fhe inatter, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably witihin a period of four inonths froiu fhe date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petition is aUowed to fhe above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agmhotri Judge < i:: m Thakur y