t^ajii Petitioner Non apoUcant Responderrts Flrst oarttf Present: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH: BILASPUR Writ PetiUon 2028 of 2001 Chhattisgarh State Industriat Deveiopment Corporatlon Ltd., Erstwhile known as Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vlkas Nigam, Raipyr, through Shri P.M. Mathew, Assistant Manager, Tifra, Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1. Ramesh KumaT Shukla, Son of Shri Shiv Kumar, Meter Reader, M.P.A.K.V.V.(R) Limited. .2) Labour Court, through Presicting Officer, Under Industrial Dispute Act, Bilaspur, Chhaftisgarh. (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Cdnstitution of !ndia.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Sattsh K. Agnlhotri, .1. Shri B.D.Guru, counsel for the petitioner. None for the resoonderite. ORAL ORDER . (Passed on 17"* day ofJuly, 3X18) The Labour Courtby the order datai 30-6-2001 (Annexure PM) helcf thaf the terminatibn of Bie petitjoner was illegal and Improper. Accordingly, thepetitlonerwas directedto reinstatethe respondent No.1 in service without backwages; 2) The petitton wasfiled in September, 2001. No steps were taken on beha'fof t'ne petitioner to get the matter listed and obtain the stay or the impugned order dated 30-6-2001 (Annexure^ P/1), presumably the'order has been complied with. The resporident No.1 musthave been reinstated in serotee as per the order of the labour Court within a period 6f 30 days from 31-7-2001; Now, the claim has beoome Staie, ifthe respondent No;1 has been working ever sinoe. 3) There is no reaspn to interfere at this stage dn the ground that the respondent No.1 was initlally appointed on daiiy wage basis. It is contraiy to public policy to unsetfle a person after seven years, he has availed the benefit of the award. Even otherwise, there is nothingonmeritwarrantirigirTterferencewiththeimpUghed order. . ! ! ' . • , ' • •, • , - : • -j'l' 4) Acco.rdingly the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge