rf1^?^ ni»s» IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.Pj»sy;N0...7^^/2010 PETITIONER: / 1- S «m. K89 .^j^ •?y^ .:..--^^;'' »»••'^.~ '/'"' ^•••" RESPONDENTS ;;a< Ganga Prasad Patel S/o Late.Shri Suraj BhanPatel., R/o Village.-Banbarad, Post-Nandni Mines, Ahiwari, Tah.-Dhamdha, Dist. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1- The Executive Engmeer, Tandula Water resources, Division-Diirg, District (C.G) 2- The SuBDivisional OfGcer Tandula Water resources, Sub Division-Admababa, Balod,Distt.-Durg(C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Details ofPetition : (1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITKWER As per cause title . (2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT As per cause title. c/ ^'K.S^S^^y k..» WRIT PETITtON (L) N0.1798 of 2)10 Vereus ResDondent 4. The Executive another Engineer & WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate forthe petitioner. (PssssdonZr Learned counsel appearing for claim before the Labour Court, benefits i.e. grant of back wages. petitioner submte that the petitioner's was reinstatemsnt with consequential On quei'y, asto whether the petitionar has estabtished before the Labour Court that that he was not gainfu! empjoyee, the reply of the iearned counsel is very ciear and categorical that no document has been produced nor anything has been plsaded with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not gainfulty empioyed elsewhere during the period he was out of job. Even nothing has been pleaded in this regard in the present petition also. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that reinstatement foiiows with fuli backwages, is rejected on a simple ground that grant of backwages depend on several factors mere reinstatement is not enouah. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I have found that no other proof or evidence except the self same statement made by the petitioner before the courts below that he was not gainfuiiy employed during the period he was out 6f service, was produced and examined. Be that as it may, it is weii-nigh estabiished that the High Court in exeroise of its axtraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory ^.B,,:»" 8»i"|l'B"" .„»„<<&. f;'fe?l ' Bi:« 6. 7. ?';. s -r: jurisdiction ui'ider Articte 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts betow, except in such cases where perversity, iltegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The Supreme Court, in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt Ltd., P.G.I. of Medica! Education & Research, Chandigsrh v. Rajkumai^, Indian Ra'Sway Cons!Tuction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kuma^, UP State Road Tfsnsport Corporation v. B'rendra Bhandan, Banshs Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & anothe^, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawat & anottwi9. Hamdarcf (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labow Commissioner & others. Pepsu Road Transport Corporat'ion v. Rawel Singf^, has vividly discussed the scope of s writ court granting back wages that payment of back wages, purely a discretionary element has to be dealt with regard to the facts and circumstancas of each case. The employee has to estabfish that hs was not gainfuily empioyed eisewhere. The Court has to examine asto whether the employee was jainfully empioyed during the period, the employee was out of service. in absence of any averments or pieadings in this regard, it cannot be heid that the order passed by the Labour Court is erroneous or unsustainable in iaw. Thus, the petition being bereft of merii is dismissed. L. ^Snl S^^S feotr1 - (1973) 2 SCC 80, para 11 2 (2001) 2 SCC 54, para 9 S 12 • (2003) 4 SCC 579 • * (2006) 10 SCC 211 5 (2007) 1 SCC 324 ijara 7, 8 s 9 5 (3007) 2 SCC 433 para 11, 15, 17 to 19 & 28 ' (2007), 5 SCC 281 ° (20Q8) 4-^SCC 42 para 17 to 19