APPELLANT Pramod Kumar Yadav, s/o I Bahurram Yadav aged about 35 years, R/o Gram Post Sirri, Tehsil Thana Kurud, District Dhamtan’, CG, Versus " RESPONDENTs 1 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat Kurud, Tehsil & Thana Kurud, District Dhammri, CG 2 Presiding' Officer, Labour Court, Raipur, CG. CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT gAPPEAL TO DIVISEON BENCH} ACT: 2006 I WRET APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE 1 OF THE Aggearanc : Shri N.K. Vyas, Advocate for respondent No.1 on advance copy. Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for ihe awenant. ORAL ORDER (23.8.2011) Foaiowing order of the Court was passed by Sunii Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admiesion. The appetlant has fiied this appeai chaiienging the order dated 9th May, 2011, passed in W.P.(L) No. 356 of 2011 by the learned Singie Judge of this Court. By the impugned order, the teamed Singie Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition in terms of the order paased in a simiiar (WP(L)‘No. 5963/2Q10). The learned Singie Judge has aiso observed .petition of Shiv Prasad Sarthi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others - " I ' ~ , w that against the said order passed in WP (L) No. 5963/2010, an appea! was Ied by the employee vide W.A.No.56/20~11 and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 172.201 1. The appellant herein was working as a Chowkidar on daily wages basis. On the basis of a Policy decision taken by the State Government with regard to termination of daily wages employees appointed after 31.12.1998, by order dated 2.1.1998, the appellant was terminated from the service. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was tiled and the Labour Court, allowing the dispute directed for reinstatement of the appellant F without back wages. .The said order was chattenged by the employer in the writ petition. The writ court quashed the order passed by the Labour Courtton the strength of earlier similar order passed in the matter of Shiv Prasad Sarthi (supra), which was confirmed in the appeal. lt was directed that instead of reinstatement, monetary compensation woutd serve the ends of justice and the appellant was held entitled tewa sum of Rs.60,000/— as w compensation. lt was also directed that such payment shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, failing which; the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. During the course of arguments, Shri Vyas submits that the entire amount due to the appellant as per order dated 9m May, 201 1, has been paid to him by Cheque No. 479981 dated 3.6.201 1. Since the order of the Single Judge is passed on the basis of a similar earlier order passed'by him and confirmed in the appeat by the i Division Bench)and further, no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in @ the order impugned, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. i The Writ Appeai, therefore, is liable to dismissed and is hereby i i dismissed summariiy. No order as to costs. Sd/- i , r i i r i SUNIL KUMAR SINHA i i i i . ' i ,__V Sdl~ ¥ {f/ z»: 75 Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge r ”J r. Judge 9/ .7