1 i . I Petltmmer 5" i“ H WW a Resge Gems ~ I ‘ Preseht: By this petrrron the aeu’noner rmpuqns the amer dated 1682UG4 ’{z‘Rnnexure PI r) mssed by ihe }ndusr.:al Court fRarpur, t9 ’tHe extent of derrai 9f I ham wages ‘2) Berng aggrieved by tHe iermnataon order dated 15—9-1 Q9! the petmoner The Labour‘Ceur‘i, having heard-both the pnrues passed the order defiea 23-84%4' (Amexure P/2), herding ‘fnat the te “aina’am erder :mpugwed 7 thereih was il egai’ set aside‘he order dated 15-9-19Q7 passed by the Depot wager Bl§asnur and remstqted the petrtror‘er Wiih the payment of fuii: baek' wages Thereagmnst the respondewt authcrties ereferrezt art appea! beirég ma] Court, Rajpur. By orderidate‘d Court, Raipur, ‘matntathed the Bi§aspur. W?it Pet§tion #89 of 29M- Rashid Khan, aged about 53 years, sio. Shabbir Ahamad Khan lrlo. House Ne 2" Wage Sapea, PO Power House tshlia: Dismr‘tDJ (CG) Varsus 1. State 6f C‘nha‘ttisgarh, h rough Member $Lgdge, industrial Court, Raipur {CG}. ’ 2. Chhattisgamk _ §i1ffastfuctufe & Dsveiopmer" Corporation through D:Vis.cnal Mamgel, Bhaapw (FG) 3. Labaw Cpurt, thrqugh Presmh’ag Qfficer, Bi!a$pur (CG); \ (Wrat Peii’tion under Article 225i227 of thé Cons‘xitu’iion of ind'ra.) SB‘ Hon’bie Mr. SatishwK. Agmhorri, J Mr VG Sharma counsearerrhe petltmner Ms Sumta dam ‘9mel Lawyerfa *He Starr? {EAL mama { {Passea on this 9&3“ éay cf ‘Jiarch ZWS) x HEGH CGiiRT OFCHHATTESGARH: EILASPUR erer'erred a ciarm case being Vase No.332WFLIRI87 before 'he Lanour Court ’Case’ No. 334iMPtRf94 before the State indus -’!$—8¥2G04 (Annexure PH‘, The indus’mai . reinsiaéemén‘i ‘ (nif i the . peiFIianer, but dismi$3ed the paymenf. cf Mi bac wages. The petitmner $as preferred ihis pemioa undef Ariic:e 22‘? of the cansi‘iiutim 0f India, impuéninF the order dated 16—8-2304 {Armexme Pi? I 1'0 the exteni 0f denial 0f ba¢k @ages. i 3} Having hieard ieamed counsei for the petitioner, peruéed the p§eadmgs and dosuments§ appended therem, it appears that n0 foundathn was mid for f gmnt of back wéges in the Coun‘ bebw. The Labour Ceuri has net consides'ed as to whether the petitioner was gainfuily empieyed e?sewhefe 0r not. Thus, for wam 6f suffciehi maiaial, the petit§oner was not entitied to gram cf back wages. 4) This Coed, in exercise of its extraordinafy juriediction Lieder Ai'éicie 226/227 of the lCGnstituiiOn of india has iimiied scape to interfei’e wiih the firiding‘s of tiie Labour Conr‘f. The High Court can ihteriere oniy ih cases of i V erionecus aSSUmption of facts or excess of jarisdic’aigri, refusal r0 exercise iaiiisdiction, i . error, i of iaw apparent on the “face of records, ar t irrary or caoricious exercise of powers of rhe auihoriry or oisorimihation, hagran‘f error in prooedure arid. recording oi’ithe perverse findings. in the oresent cese, i have hot found hat any of the ground stated above has been invoked to; seek interference of ‘ i i < s Courk. ' I x For the reasons stared above, it does not warrant Lny ihrerference wiih )ugnec‘; order dared ‘18—‘8-2004 (.ennex‘ure PH) anoi as! a reeuit, rhe petiiion dismissed summariiy. Consequenriy, M.W.P.No.§831 of 2604 ano‘ o.63 10f 20% aiso stands dismissed ii N - t