^-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IIN^ llwa^, PETITIONER RESPONDENT Writ^PMttMi(1LlNo.27Mof20 Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development CorporatitMi, Through its Divisional Manager (Transport Departmeat) CIDC, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Bisahu Prasad Shulda, residence ofvillage Kiimlmri (Tila), Police Station Aarang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (WMT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEffi CONSTTTmiON OF INDIA) fSB: Hon»bleMr. Satish K. Aemhotri, J.) Present : Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for tbe petitiotier. None for the respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 3rd day ofJidy, 2008) I.A. No. 1, application for exemption fix?m filing fhe certified copy of the order dated 21.02.05, is dismissed as not pressed, on the ground that the petitioner has already file certified copy ofthe said order dated 21.02.05. I.A. No. 2, application for taking the docwment on reconi, is ordered as prayai for. 1. The petitioner challenges the validity aiui legaNty ofthe order dated 1.04.06, passed by the Industrial Court; Raupur (Annexure P/l), whereby, the findings ofthe Ubour Court was eotifirmed aad theorder dated 21.02.2005, passed by the Labour Court, allowing the s^plicstwn ofthe respondenl, granting re-instatement with fall backwages, was upheld. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitiot r submits that the order is ex-parte, thus, tiie same deserves to be quashed. 3. On perusal ofthe impugned order dated 21.02.2(X)5, it is evident that the petitioner employer has failed to estabKsh misconduct against tihe respondent. Employer was given sufficient opportunity to produce and ^ ^' examine the evidence in order to prove misconduct alleged agaitist the respondent The petitioner employer did not take any stqp and remaiaed absent throughout despite service ofnotice. 4. The Labour Court has found that tiie allegation of misconduct against the respondent was not found proved. Accordingly, it was wdered to re-instate the respondent with full backwages. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. Ttous, no interference is warranted in exercise ofpower under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 5. The petition is devoid ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge