>-: -%- ^^-s^ .-^^0> ^ "" . . ;<«*•••'**" . . ' '?^e^:!;..---"< ^p*""" (S> ^ <\Jy IN THEmGH GOURTOF GHHATTISGARH ATBILASPtIR W.R(L) No. 7?4S /2007 c- Petitioner ^/I. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Devetopment Corporation, D.K.S. Mantralaya, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ^ State Indusjtilal Chhatti^arh^Raipur Th9»(igh^RagistraT VERSUS \. Indramam Singh Rajpoot, S/o Shri Harishigh Rajpoot --C.OIldo<'f'~"^~^SUfl<te-na.ri-aL-_ A ^y// vew^/^ ^y^^ -»"-' . ^^ - '^t^^7 /;>° ^' M;iS^/ ^ 'lSta^* taaastaAa),, QS^E*.. '.^a3.i>yEii'-'B»rO«SUI"Re9¥s€ea*»"' -- . 1: •. •:1;:' ^l?t^"1^^"WMT'raTITION'^D^ A]CTICLES22^ OF THE ^y ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ./<;' , ^--..----—--.—-.——. ^ .J^' ^t- . ' Jl^^_ l:'8ai »t HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (U N0.7348 OF 2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Versus Indramani Singh Rajpoot & Another g»- 2. (Writ Petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri G.D. Vaswani, cbunsel for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed onthis 1stdayofApril, 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validityof the order dated 19-12-2006 (Annexure—P/1) passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in civil appeal No. 51/CGIR Act/A-11/2006 (/ftdre/naro Smgrh Rajpoot v. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Coiporation). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the termination order dated 25-10-2002 the respondent No.l/employee approached the Labpur Court by filing an application under Sectiori 31 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which was registered as case N6.334/MPIR Act/2002/Civil. In the said case, the learned Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the respondent No.l/employee without back wages. Thereagianst, for grant of back wages the respondent No.1 approached thelndustrial Court. The Industrial Court by order dated 19-12-2006 modified the order passed by the Labour Court and granted 50% back wages to the respondent No.1 employee. The impugned order passed by the Industrial is illegal, arbitrary and there was no proper justification in granting 50% back ward. Thus, this petition. 1 have perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It appears that the Industrial Court after having heard the .= 3. parties came to theconclusion that after removal ofthe respondent No.l/employee from service, the respondent No.1 has no source of income, as he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, thus in view of the facts of the case, the Industrial Court directed payment of 50% back wages on the principle that the employee was out of job without being gainfully employed. On perusal of the order in its entirety 1 do not find any irregularity in granting 50% back wages by the Industrial Court. There is no challenge to the order of reinstatement in the instantpetition except order of grant of 50% back wages. The Labour Court by order dated 12-6-2006 granted reinstatement without back wages, it is not under challenge in this petition. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Gowri Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge 4 s-