^F^ HiGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH t: HON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, C.J. PETITION N0. 262 OF 2005 ITiONER Vs. 2. Municipat Corporation, through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Mohammed Farookh, S/o Noor Mohammed, aged about 26 years, Ex- Clerk, Municipai Corporatlon, Biiaspur Si Resident of Kasim Para, Torwa Naka Near Kendriya Vidyaiaya ^ilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattlsgarh) Preseat; Mrs. Hamida Siddique, iearned counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Vlnod Deshmukh, learned counsel for responderi No.1.. ORAL ORDER l-»nMI (Passed on 12"' Januany, 2006) Munlcipai Corporation Bilaspur was the employer of first respondent. The first respondent was removed from service w.e.f. 10/01/2000 on the ground that there was no need for his sen/ices. Seing aggrieved by the above action of the petitioner - Municipa! Corporation, the first respondent initiated conciiiation prooeedings uitimateiy resulting in tha faiiure report. In the cireumstance, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bilaspur for adjudicatson. -a.- (2) record SSS^S8ei SV'i' T!'-^•y'f-^S'.E^S'; Labour Court Bitespur having conductsd the enquiry finding that the removal of fhe first respondent from tgntamounted to retrenchment and the action of ihe petitioner Municipal Corporation was 'n utter vioiation of mandatory provisions of Sectton 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") answered the reference in favour of the first respondent and directed reinstatement of the first respondent into senice with continuity of services and fuii back wages, by its award dated 16/11/2004. Hence, this writ petition by the aggrieved Municipal Corporation of Biiaspur. (3) Heard tearned counseS for the parties and perused the impugned av/ard and other materiai papers appended to the wnt petttton. The find'ng of the Labour Court that the first respondent was removed from service in viotation of tha mandatory provisions of tection 25-G was not assaited wifri any seriousness. As a matter of fact, as pointed out by the L.abour Court, before removing the first respondent from servioe the petitioner did not adhere to / compiy with the mandatory provisfons of Section 25.G of the Act. Rsaiizing this posltion, Smt. Hamida Siddiqui iearned counsei for the petitioner ~ MunicipaS Corporation wouid contend that the Labour Court ought not to have awarded ful! back wages to the first respondent. it needs to be noticed that generaily speaking ful! back wages should Toilow the reinstatement of a workman into sen/ice unless it is shown satisfactorily that between the removal and reinstatement, the workman concerned was gainfutiy employsd etsewhere. This is neittier the ptea of the petitioner nor any proof was iaid before the Labour Court to support such piea. In the circumstance,! cannot take &3'»': 'v'v -3- ^^^•'li^N^^ any exception to the award of the Labour Court granting ful! back-wages to the respondent woricman, particufarly, when no biame could be attributed $o the first respondent wori<man. There is no merit 'n this writ petition and it is accordingiy dlsmissed, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice y^