Rikhi Ram v. State ofChhattisgarh & Anr.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 398 of2004 PETITIONER Rikhi Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P.No. 440 of 2004 PETITIONER Radhelal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P.No. 399 of 2004 PETITIONER Chumman Lal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P. No. 400 of 2004 PETITIQNER Santosh Kumar VERSUS RE.SPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&another W.P.No. 415 of 2004 PETITIONER Labha VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhartisgarh&another W.P.No. 416 of 2004 PETITIONER Netram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh& another ^^ ^-:.•••: " y '—) PETITIONER W.P.No. 417 of 2004 Om Prakash YERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&another W.P.No.418of2004 PETITIONER Pardeshi Ram VERSUS (-,-vl < RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another PETtnONER W.P.No. 419 of 2004 Vishwanalfa VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P. No. 455 of2004 PETITIONER Punit Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&another PETITIONER W.P. No. 456 of 2004 Ganga Ram YERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P.No. 484 of 2004 PETITIONER Babulal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another ^' W.P. No. 485 of 2004 PETITIONER Ramadhar VER8US RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh <fe another W.P.No. 526 of 2004 PETITIONER Dwarika VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P. No. 525 of 2004 PETITIONER Pilaram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P. No. 550 of2004 PETITIONER Babu Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P. No. 504 of 2004 PETITIONER Chandulal VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another W.P.No. 587 of 2004 PETITIONER Hirain VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & another ^ y ^ 4 W.P. No. 505 of 2004 PETITIONER Bhagchandra VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh<te another , W.P. No. 506 of 2004 PETITIONER Bhodhanram VEK.SUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh& another W.P. No. 527 of 2004 PETITIONER Heera Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & aiiother rWRTT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEffi CONSTm.TION OF INDIA^ fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AearwaL J.) Present : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate Generai for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 31.10.2013)

All the above mentioned petitions involve common facts and common questions of law and, as such, require consideration and disposal by the common order, leading case^f which is WP No. 398 of 2004.

Facts of the case are that all the petitioners were muster-roll employees with the respondent-State. Services of petitioners were ..fr-.^.; 1--^'1'~^'A;- ^N'/t:: discontmued w.e.f. 01.10.1999. Dispute was raised by them under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The matter was referred to the Labour Court to decide the issue "wliethier the order of termination from service is valid, if not, for what relief they are entitled and what instruction can be given to the employer. " However, the Labour Court, without deciding the issue relerred to it, dismissed the reference holding tbat they are not daily wager employees and as per govemment's order dated

31.12.1988 they have been removed from services. Undisputedly, on the face, the question referred to the Labour Court has not been decided, therefbre, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and de^erves to be set aside. I

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitions are allowed in part. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to decide the issue, which has been referred to it, strictly in accordance with law ^^ afresh.

Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Raipur, on

09.12.2013. Noorderastocosts. _-— Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahy