.»'»•- ^^.t.-^^,^^.f: f. ^?:WSF;"ffli° ^- ^!!'^-:'.r? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION f $ ) N0. 2^^ OF2W7 PETITIONER fRESPONDENTS / Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Devp. Corporation, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Versus ^ 1. Industrial Court, Raipur (CG). ^2. Jasim Khan, S/o Bashir Khan, Resident of Ward No.4, Nayapara, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (CG). •!3S%a?%S-a. ^s5-5ti^RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226MW OF THE ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^.^i-uutfun^o^.- .,_ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 44 WRIT PETITION (S} No. 2296 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastmcture Devp. Corporation. VERSUS Industrial Court, Raipur & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri V.R.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER <ORAL) (Passed on 05th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 33/CGIR Act/A-II/2006, wherein the Industrial Court, after having considered all the aspects ofthe matter, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, partly to the extent that the respondent-employee would be entitled to 50% backwages. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 was initially the employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the MPSRTC') working on the post of Driver. On dissolution of the MPSRTC, he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. While working at Mahasamund, the respondent No. 2 was terminated from service on 03.02.2000. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 approached the Labour Court, Raipur challenging the order of dismissal dated 03.02.2000. The Labour Court allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to reinstate him without backwages. Thereagainst, with regard to denial ofback wages, the respondent No. '^ '"^ w" ^3'"^ v:;^:^^^ n i 'ssys9 j ^..""cy ^- 2 preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court, Raipur praying for grant of backwages. The Industrial Court directed the petitioner to grant 50% back wages to the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2006 (Annexure P/l). Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the liability of the MPSRTC has been fastened upon the petitioner- Corporation, which has came into existence after dissolution of the MPSRTC, which is erroneous. 4. On hearing leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perusal ofthe documents and pleadings, it appears that the MPSRTC was not made a party-respondent before the Industrial Court and no objection was raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority that the appeal, without impleading MPSRTC as party respondent, was not maintainable. The instant petition is filed on the several other grounds, but no ground has been raised that the appeal was not maintainable for wanf ofMPSRTC as a party-respondent, and secondly, no attempt was made in this Court also, to implead the MPSRTC as party respondent- Thus, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted for want ofproper party. 5. So far as grant of 50% back wages is concerned, this is based on the fact that the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere during absence, because of illegal order of removal, which was set aside by the Labour Court. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia. 6. The Supieme Covtn,'m Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts have passed orders in exercise of power under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refram fi-om deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution as if they are adjudicating appeals filed against the orders of the lower courts or other judiciaVquasi-judicialbodies/authorities." 7. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patif-. 8. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infmnity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exereise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts offhe case, no interference is warranted. Thus, the petition is meritless and is dismissed. 10.No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Judge tn Amit ' 2010 AIRSCW 1414 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329