HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P. (L) No. 6457 of 2007 Petitioner 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chattisgarh, fhrough Executive Engixteer, PubUc Works Departinent, Division No.I, Duig, District Durg (Chhatdsgarh) Versus Respondents 1. Ayodhya Siagh, S/o Kunwar Singh, aged about 37 years. Tikarain, S/o Ujau, aged about 46 years. Smt. Kachra Bai, S/o Bisharu, aged about 35 years. AU are R/o VSlage Bharda, Post Kufhrel, Tahsa & District Duig (Chhattisgarh) Bhisliam, S/o Krishna Prasad, Caste Kurmi, aged about 38 years, R/o Anjora Dhaba, Post - Nagpiu-a, Thaaa Bori, Tahsil & Disfrict Duig Kailasttaaud, S/o Ashok Naud, Caste Gond, aged about 32 years, R/o Baagali Colony, Sikolabhata, Thana Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tahsa 8s District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner/State. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Rinky Tamrakar, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on ttus 27th Day ofApril, 2009) 1. The petitioner/State has filed this petition chaUenging fhe award dated 14.5.2007 (Aimexure P/l), passed by the Laboiir Court, Dwg in Case No. 17/ID Act/2004 (Refl, whereby the petitioner/State was directed t6 reinstate the respondents without back-ws^es. 2. Shri Yashwant Sragh Thakur, karaed Deputy Advocate General submits that pursuaat to the award dated 14.5.2007 the respondents have been reinstated ia service. There was no question of back-wages, as there was no order of the Court below. ^ 3. Leanied counsel appearing for the respondents submits fhat the respondents have been reinstated in service, piusuaat te the award dated 14.5.2007. He further subinits fhat fhe respondents/eiuployees are not claiming any back-w^es, as fhe same was also not grauted to them by the Labour Court. 4. Since the impugued order was passed on 14.5.2007 and fhe respondents have been reiastated in service, no useful purpose would be served, if the case is decided on nierit. Even otherinse, fhis Court can exercise equity jurisdiction in the facts ofthe case under Article 226/227 offhe Constitution oflndia. 5. Looking fixim atl angles, equily lies ia favoiir ofthe respondents. Thus, no iaterference is warrauted. Accordiugly, the writ petttion is dismissed. No order asto costs. Thnkur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge