^ HIGH O- .^t)1 CQisiiiis.Bd.B.ut K'iaiiB OBHID. P.0. ^As^ia CaniD. Tehsil ^c Distt. Raipur. Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENT ; Devkaranlal Dswansa!!. S.'o Late Masim!a! Dewa'isasi. Otr. No. 1172-11/1. . Mana Camp. Uistt. Kaipur, '~"'"'^0*""'L~' (WRH PETmON TJNDER ARTTCI-F. 226 OF TIIE CONSTTHmON OF TNniA) (SB' Hori'ble Mr- Sati'ah K. Affnihoti'i- 3^' issnt ; Shri K^I-P.S. Bhatin. OeDuts7 Ooyt. AdvQc&te fortlie State/DGtitioiisr. None for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on 2""'day ofJune, 2008) 1. The Stste/Getitioner has filed tliis Detitioii. challeiisiiis the legslit^/ &iid validity ofthe awai'd dated 02.11.1998 (A"nexure P/l), passed by the Labour Court. 2. The brief fac-ts in iiutshell are lliBt- the resDOtidlpnt VA.?ss reiHQ^/ed II*QI?I servic-s Q£I^0.03.1991. Tlie r'ssQoirdeiit Hi?Di'oaciied liie Iiidu.sti'ial Ooui't. Ths Industrial CQui't. bv ^\¥arddstsd 14.07.1995< sct nsids tlie renioval order aiid directed the Detitioiicr to reinstBte thc resDQiidsiit. The respondent aS'eged that he had approachsd before the petitioner autfaority tojoin the sen/ice pursuant to the awai'd dated 14.07.1995, but he was not pennitted to join the sen/ice til! 25.08.1998. Thus, tiie respondeiit was entitled to grant of wages from 14.07.1995 till 02.02.1998. 3. Shri Bhatia- isanied coytissl aDD^srin^ for tlie Slfite/DstitiQHcr subiiiits t^-iFit tlie -rpl:<;rtonrlffnt ^?ac rsRirl QRla?^..? f^^f*r UF; iHn-ip'f'1 tltia Vfi-.r^.p^r.e', n^ ^.^^^•-'^J.^-^^-^ . . ^,^- J^^^.^ ^^^.^.L^ ^^-^^-^ ^.^•~- J^--^^^^ ^^^ ^.^-. t^^-W ^^A 02.02.1998. IIe fhrtlier subnilts diB^i tlis rssDoiideiit is Bot sntilied to ^nv bac-k'l,va2es as lie hs-d iiot ioiiied his <iutv bcforc 0^.02.1998 fbr the DQriod froni 1995 till June- 1 4. Tlis s.uthos'it'1/. iinder the Ps^7i2ieut of^/sses A.ct- &f^er cQiisi<iei45i2 all the s^sDects ofths inattsr snd exsiiiiiiins thff dQcyi!isnts Droduced before hini. csine to cosiclusioii tha-t thc resnoiideiit has estsblished tli^t desDits his best effbrts. he could iiot be Dsmiittcd to iQin thc dut^/ before 0^2.02.1998. A-ccordi'iisilv- it 'il/as diz'sctsd thst tlie wsses fi'Qii! Juiv- 1995 ^^ R^- 6-55^'- he nsiid \x;it'l-! ^df^is'^il^le ho^^'s i e 1?? ^OO/- ?lnr1 alsQ Rs. 1000/- to^.vards coinnsiisation to the r1psriondftiit. S Re"titT flff<TrT<:ax/~p;<? t?Tip- n<p;fitinner ^P^ flle^ t"i<; np:tilinn '^•"O "00"^'-' • '"? *'"-' j[-r-"^"—~-—.—.. ^..^^ ^^^ ^..^^^^^. 6. On Demssl of the olsBdiiiss and docuinents RnDpriided thereto. it is evident t!iat the respondent camiot be he'd responsible, as he was not pennitted to join the duty, as is found proved by tlie Tribmia! below. !t is purely question of finding of facts Thus, no interference is required at tiiis stage. T. The DGtitioii is a.ccQi'dinslv dissiiissed. ^To order asto co^ts, Sahu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge