Dismissed

Govind Singh Khurana v. State Industrial Court Raipur and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2007WP/2413/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 impugned the Industrial Court's order setting aside a Labour Court directive reinstating the petitioner. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court, ruling that a daily wage appointment for a short duration without following selection rules rendered reinstatement rights inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Petition for writ under Article 227 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Govind Singh Khurana Vs State Industrial… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

:;^^.^^^'^^>u-V-..

¶2

^'L^ir^-'1!^"v- •:
t^ "

¶3

ZIM THE HZGH COURT OF JUDXCATURE &S JABALPfJR

¶4

W.P.IbHyj^. of 1999.

¶5

PET.33LlX).KiEK _s. GOVIKD ©INGHKHURANA S/o Guri^rachan Singh aged ^- 35 yeo.rs, ^/o Purani Basti^ Bani-wada. - &aipur^ - r RESPONDEKSSsi. Sta-fce Sndustrial C&urt .< ^ .^ Raipur BenchKrishna SaBan -^-^ 16 M.2. G. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (M.E'.) , ^Ef.^. State Roa<3 Transport Corporation 1 through its Divisional Manager Raipur» .~^'"^P£TI2.B3K UNDER. iiRl'IdjE 227 OF THE G3HSSI3>UTX)N OP ^ INDA

¶6

^ ^^ ^r-t. .-; ^^' ZH THE H2GH COl

¶7

PST13CJQ3Nsa „

¶8

RESPOlMDSt.iSS.l. ^i^ .^ ^ 72 .<y3<; %^fl. '^7 ^$?^£s^ SSDlS. l..£s£.U , ^x'.^ 2. £>artj 3< P§rl;3 A^j -4ida^ 4. i?hq,,.<

¶9

efthatttsga»h''$nl'££"8s.tez*u<5t-yE..e» • • • " DeVetopB ftfe^{G!sa?pSE^A<3fe<} Throyghs $ts t>ivtsi^a3. Kanageff Ra&pui? (C.G<)

¶10

pres^

¶11

^ACT,

unde

^-.--.•

^^^^.-^^s-

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶17

SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J.

¶18

WRIT PETITION N0.2413 OF 1999

Pstitioner

Govind Singh Khurana

Vereus

Respondents State Industrial Court, Raipur Bench andanofrier

¶23

Present : Mr. Y.C.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep&Dcsna, cainsel for respCTid^it No.2.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Passed^{on12thDay of February, 2007)}

¶26

By thjs petition, filed under Artjde 227 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner impugns the orcter dated 17-4.1999 (P-4), whereunder the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. The Industrial Court came to the conctusion that the period spent by the petitioner in the emptoymCTt of respondent No.2 was harctly for 2 months and 24 days. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the order of tennination p^sed on the ground that hte servioes wss not satisfactory.

¶27

The petitioner was initjally appojntsd on daijy wages vide order

¶28

dated 14/17-10-1987 (P-1). Thereafter. by various ordere, the petitioner

¶29

continued upto 31-12-1987, when the services of the p^itioner was discontinued on theground that hte services was not found satisfactory.

¶30

The Labour Court, without holding ^to whether the petitioner has completed 240 days in the preceding year, allowed the application of the petitioner on the ground ftat no ^TOW rause notice wss issued befoFe djscontinuation of the servioes of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Labour Court, by order dated 23-6-1990 (P-3), allowed theapplication of the petitioner and directed reiretatemwt wthout back WSQSS.

¶31

The Industrial Court came to the conclusion ttiat no show cause notice W26 necessary when fhe appointment of the petitioner was on daily wages for a period of about 2 monfhs and 24 days. The orcter of the Labour Court is erroneous and contnary to the settled position of law.

¶32

It is wefl settled principle of law by a catsna of decisions of the Supreme Court that appointment of a candidate on daily wages basis, without inviting apptications from the similariy situatecl candklates and dehors rutes, is contrary to the constitutionat scheme of emptoyment.

¶33

Thus, the petitfoner has no right to reinslatement, continuation on the post. The constjtutional philosophy of equal opportunjty of appointment to a(l eljgible candidates is appljc^ibte in Ihe present case of

¶34

a^ojnfrr^italso.

¶35

—"

¶36

For the aforestated reasons, ftere is no wanant to intsrfere with the findings and orcter passed by the Industrial Court impugned herein. The orcter is ji^tand valid.

¶37

Thus, as a resutt and for the reasons aforesfated, this petition is

¶38

djsmissed. Noorderastocoste. —-

¶39

Sd/SatishK.Agnihotri Judge

¶40

Gopat

¶41

Govind Singh Khurana v. State Industrial Court Raipur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Singh Khurana v. State Industrial Court Raipur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Kalicharan Suryawanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sohan Lal Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Radheshyam Sahu and Ors. Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Kumar Sahu and Others Vs State Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hanuman Prasad Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.