N IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. \133 /g& Q5 PETITIONE‘R ‘H’PEHq’hyf 6w Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Developments Corporation, through Divisional Manager ( Transport Department ) C.I.D.C. Raipur VERSUS 4‘ RESPONDENTS A.G. Mansoori S/o A.S. Mansoori R/O NaN‘ Mpalrmf 4w Purani Basti Maihar Dist. Satna (M.P.) WRIT PETITTON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N //A‘ gg HGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILA$P§jR WRST PETiTiCN (227} NO. 113% OF ZQGS Pe%itioner Chhaaisgarh Infrastructure Devgicp- meats Corpcration. Versus Respondeni A‘G. Mansoori WRIT PETéTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTlTUTiON OF lNDiA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Saiish K. Agnihom, J.) Preseni :— Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) {Passed on 13th day 0f January, 201 1) \__ Chailenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.1.2006 (Annexure P-2), whereby the State industriai Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur; confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court, in which the Labour Court had directed to reinstate the respondent with 50% backwages. m. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that white directing the reinstatement of the respondent empioyee, the Labour Court has not recorded sufficient reasons. Thus; order of reinstatement is iiiegai and if the reinstatement of the empioyee goes, the question of baokwages would not arise. 3. It is further submitted that the empioyee has attained the age of superannuation anftoday‘i‘the question of reinstatement does not arise, but if the order passed by the Labour Court is iliegat, the petitioner is entitled to recover the backwages granted to the respondent empioyee by the authorities below. The contention of the petitioner that the Labour Court has not passed the reasoned order white granting‘reinstatement is rejected, as oh perusal of the order dated 2.8.2002 (Annexure P—t) passed by the k) Labaur Court; it has cisariy been found iha’t after the matter was remitted back from the industrial Court t0 the Labour Court for considering the case afresh, the petitioner was granted severai opportunities toproduce documents and witnesses, however, the petitioner (non-appticant) faiied to produce any witnesses or documents. On 26.32002, the right of the petitioner to fiie response was taken away. tt was held that the averments of the respondent employee could not be denied to prove that the empioyee had Committed any misconduct. Accordingly, the order of removal was quashed. On the question of grant of backwages also, the Labour Court has considered ait the retevant facts. The industrial Court by order dated 17.1 .2D06, which is impugned herein have afhrmed the findings of the order passed by the Labour Court. There is no quarrel on the contention of the petitioner that recording of reasons is a legal requirement before passing the order {See : East Coast‘Raiir/vay & Anr. v, Mahadev Appa Rae & Ors’ and Assistant Commissioner, Commerciai Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kata v. MJS. Shuida & Brothersz). tn the case on hand. the reasons, though preciseiy, have been recorded before passing the order byrhe Labour Court. Be that as it may, the question with regard to grant of reinstatement have become academic and order of 50% backwages is concerned, this have been examined at length and after recording the finding that the respondent survived during absence, on the basis of loans and other assistance advanced by their relatives and friends and as such he cannot be held, that he was employed gainfully elsewhere. i201o AIR sow 4210 2 2cm AIR scvv 3277 Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the grant of backwages to the extent of 50% is just and proper and warrants no interference. Even under Article 227 of the Constitution of indie, wherein the scope of interference by the High Court is limited. In the case on hand, and the facts involved, as aforesaid, no interference is warrantea. tt is a trite iaw that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue of writ of cert'iorari or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 22? of the Constitution of india, would not convert itseif into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. in the case on hand, no jurisdictionai error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of lndia, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legai, just and proper. (See Abdul Razak (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagie & Others3 and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patti”. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ashok / /. Sd/- Agnihotri Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ i1 - Judge i7 2010 AIR sow 1414 4 r2010) a soc 329