M gtidas a ed about 45 yggb b) MQWabout 4£yyears (c) Jawahar Das, a ed about 38 yeag d) Mangali Bai, a ed about 3O years All (.Sizll L SJLHmhazgL,M s o harEI§\1t\r1C:.g , D‘s; ' ¥ ( 4 //. ia4njgir—Champa (C.g‘) ( aed about 55 ears, Annapurna Bai » a 5 ' ' W[0.Jhaduram (W ed bout 3g1gaLs Sha us d Sharad Kumar a c), u..Mzu’\VQ i, r K’Uinn v- ‘ v :CL ,ab Q L! t 725 My wMEW—VAW w» ww- A “(d abot ( V Klxxhnd Kum WJhadu Ram A11 R/o Chamya, Tahsil and District Jan 1r-Champa C.. .) , 11 W ‘ w “v ‘(0 w ( u Lt‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.196 OF 1987 PETITIONER Municipal Council, Champa Versus RESPONDENTS Dadooram Dwivedi (Dead) through LRs Satish Kumar Dwivedi & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of'the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate appears as amicus curiae to assist the Court. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 15‘ day of March, 201 1) 1. Heard. 2. By this petition. the petitioner — Municipal Council. Champa‘ seeks to challenge thelegality and validity of the orders dated 28-4-1986 (Annexure — P/7 to P/14) passed’by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, by E. which the claim filed by the employees/respondents herein has been allowed, 3. At the very outset, Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very fairly submits that the petitioner‘is ready and willing to pay the entire awarded amount to the employees. However, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the interest on the awarded amount due to the critical financial condition of the petitioner. ln view of foregoing submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to make the entire awarded amount to the employees/respondents herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Looking to the financial condition of the petitioner and time lag, the respondents/employees are not entitled to any interest on the amount awarded by the Labour Court. \ For want of representationldespite service of notice,on behalf of the respondents/employees, Shri‘ Koshy, learned Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Shri Koshy has rendered valuable assistance. Thus, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of ? 10,000/— to Shri Koshy, as professional fees and expenses within a period of four weeks. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge,“ , / . Gowri i x _ disposed of.