/ ^g;^s??^^^ ^'^JT'^. 1 •^r^l^l^ SsSss^^' ^l^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 1727 of2004 PE'n'riONERS : l. ,State of Clihattisgarii, thi-ough The Secretary, Forest, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Divisioxial Forest (.Mticer, Forest Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh^ 3. The Forest Range Ofilcer, Forest Division, .Bilaspur, District Bilaspun ClAattisgarh. YEKSUS RESPONDENT : Ajay Tiwan, S/o Shri Shrinath Tiwai-i, R/o Railway New Loco. Mariiiiai Mandir, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chiiattisgarh tlirougli Indrani Tiwari, Legal Hirer. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITU'HON OF INDIA) (SB:_lfonfMe^fcMtisXK._A@u|iotn^J.). ^Presesjrt : Sbri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioncrs/State. None for the responderit. ORALQRUER (Passcd oai ilariayo?Fcbrssary, 2009) 1. The petitioners/State, by this petition, impugti the order dated 22.11.2003 (.Annexure P/l), passed the Presiditig Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No. 53/IDA/K-111-A/2000 (Ref), under the provisions of Industi-ial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947'), whereby, the Presiding Otticen Labour CourL alter havmg considered all aspects of the matter, ailowe.d the application fiied by the respondent i.e. 'tiie petitioner tiierein and directed the State//petitioners to remstate the respondent m sendce and ,gi'ant lull backwages. 2. It. is infbrmed that the rcspondent/employee i.e. Ajay Tiwari had died in fhe meantime, therefore, the order of remstatement caimot be complied with. With regard to backwages, the State submits that. grant of backwages is ^ 7 ^^i3%. ,/^fy-^ ^ / fi>.. "i 1 ^f' W^^'-..- ^:?> 'iff%!l^ " i 4. 6. sahu illegal. Despite several oppoitumties granted to the State, the State has not complied withtti.e provisions ofSection 17-B ofthe Act, 1947. Be that as it may, smce the respondent has already died after decision ofthe Labour Court and before filmg of tliis petition, all the payment with backwages whatsoever has been ordered by the. Labour Court, camiot be fauited wifch, ITie order passed by the Labour Court is proper, just and does tiot wan-ant interference in a petition tiled under Article 227 of the Coiistitution oflndia. It is well-mgh settled principie of law 'that this Court, in exercise of its supervisoiy jurisdiction mider Ailicle 227 of the Constitution of India, sliould refraisi itself from iiiteiiermg witfa the order passed by the Court below, except in siich cases vyhere perversity, illegality, UYegularity or jur.isdict.ioD.al en:or is wrrt. large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present.case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and tlie petitioners/State. is dii'ected to calculate the amoimt asid make payment to the. respondent withm a period of tteee weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order aslo costs. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1547/2004, application for grant of mterim relicC stands disposed of —-—.—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge