'*^^^kj tu~<^r^'^"./^-rT^''^'^?'y^' ,i^^T^^^:?W^^^^^^!^^^^K^5§ ^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF'JUDICATUREATJABALPUR ^ *ra>3/'»c) >-- • . i/ W.p. Petxtioner Respondents . Dlvisiona,! Foresti Oxfieer, ::North:-Ratpur Divis.Lon, RaiFur..c»;^;y/''^ ,•.:, ;,^,^, ^!:- l:'»'"l-.veFSus-<' ' ::T; . :-i .! •^p^^W A<^tv^<- ^\ ^SV^'i^cvU<al QaA^A ^\Q ^e'kcot <Aw^l^ ^oreu^ ^cw^. <P%\^2w,m\,\'\^ •^s.^, R^^'(^J K w ai m ' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION_2SL1^1A IBB • •l.' Mil' ss HIGH CQURT OF GHHA'rEISGARH AT BILASBUR WritPetitionNo. 3269 of 1997 Petitioner Divisional Forest Officer, North Raipur Oivision, FoTest, Raipur Versus Respoadent MahenderKuBiar Saliu Sin^e Beach ; Hon'bfe Mr. Justice &rtlsfa K. Agaihotri. Shri V. Y. S. Moortliy, Deputy Advocate General wlfh Sint. Aaju Ahuja, Depuly Govt. Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri H. B, Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishia, Advocateforth.e respondent. ORALORDER (23r<1 June, 2006) The foUowiag orderof ttie Court was passed by SaUsh K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. Therespondfent was appoiiitedon 3.6.1981 asLaUourer and coB.ttnued iu service tffl. 6.11.1982, wlienhe was termiaaled ftom. service vide order dated 7.1:1.1982. ©eingaggrifivedtllfi respondent inade an application to fhe Depuly Labour Couunissioner aitd the reference was aiade to the Labour Courtfor adjudication. 2. The labourCourt afterhavmg gEanted several oppdrturuties to fhe petitioner, prOGeeded ex-parte and held the order dated 7.11.1982 as unproper and iB^al. ttwas further direGted tp reiustate fhe petitioner jn Seryice wifh fuU back w^es. Pursuaat to fhe order dated24.t2.1996p^sedbytheLabouT Court the respondjent was reuistated in service withput baek wages. Prior to the passing of ftie final order dated 24.12.1996 by the Labour Court, the case proceeded eX-parte against the ". The petitioner lcioved an appltoation on 13.5.1985 ' before the Labour Court fbr setttag aside the ex-parte 6id:cr. The saM appljcatkin was afflow^ On ^^.1996. The petidoi^ agsdD. remaiaed absentthiwuglMHiteven fhereaiter. Ultimatel^ •% '\- i^ ^^1 ••I^^^^^^'^^^^^I'^if:®^!?^!' 6. tfae Labpyr Ctourt bad to p^ declaringthebp(lei<dated7.Il.l982asillegalatuliiaproper. Being aggrieved.1liepetitipD.er has filed fhis petition under Articte 227 of the Coastitution of Ilidia praying fhat fhe impugned prder dated 24.12.96 passedbythe Laboiu- Court be set-asideaxid quashed. &~ < This Court whife issuiag noticeon 14.8.1997 stayedthe im^nigned award in respect of i^c^iy ofte According to learried counsel for tfae icspohdent, the respondent has been reinstated iu. serviee and getting the regular salary. The petitk>ner/State wide order dated 9.5.2Q06 was directed to fite retevant dpcuinents, but the petitioner failed to file ttte relevant documents and uor did askfortiiae to file documents in support ofits case. Thispetition is vague and lacks releyant laaterials for grant bf relicf L<x>lang^^ ^ petitioner that the petifioner remained tfcroughout ex-parte in ' thfi Labour Goyrt in the fcst.roynd cf HtigalMn and after^^ application feu- setting asjde thc ex-^larfe o^^ was gTanted also, the pefitioD^ reinained afeseiit. ®ven^^^& conduct Of the pedtibner befiire flus Court by;- not supplying relevant doculneiits elearly mdicates ttet •tihe order passed by thfi Labour Courtcaiutotbe heM as pervcrse, I Uawe gone thrcnigb the documeitts appeDtled to thfi petitioir as well as retuni. Thcre is no perveraity or UTegularify soas to call for interference by tfaia CotuM M exercis&^^c^ under Article 227 6f fhe Constifeution of Iiulia, with the impugned aEward.^Accoitlingly this petitiou is dismissed.No orderas to costs. \ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakurl "\;