ilIMI.iiiM •i: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION N0. 2136 OF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Shri Farid Mohammad, son of Iddu Khan Ex- Conductor, Village Bakshwaha, District Chatarpur (M.P.) Versus Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Through Managing Director, C.t.D.C. Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Divisional Manager (Transport-Cell) C.I.D.C. Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Manging Director, Madhya Pradesh Rpad Transport Corporation, Habibganj, Bhopal (Chhattisgarh). 4. Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Transport, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench '.Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav and Mr. Sameer Sahu, counsel for the C.l.D.C. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 25th day of June,2009) Heard. 2) By this petition, the petjtioner/employee, seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order datedl 1.05.2005 (Annexure P/19) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, in Appeal No. 269/CGIR/A-11/2004, (Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation & anr. v. Shri Farid Mohammad & Others) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent employer has been allowed setting aside the order dated 29.09.2004 (Annexure P/16) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. 30/MPIR/95 (Farid Mohammad v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Others), whereby the case of the petitioner has been allowed and directed the respondent employer to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages. 3) At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ employee submits thatthe petitioner is ready to forgo the back wages part, if the respondent/employer reinstates the petitioner in service, to which learned counsel appearing respondenVCIDC has no objection. In this regard a written consent has been submitted by both the parties. 4) In view of foregoing, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petitionstands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, interim order passed earlier, if.any,is vacated. ——~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri „^— Judge ^