Gowri £ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 3648 OF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. Sadheram Jangade S/o Shri Sonua Jangade Aged about 47 years R/o village Khamnhi (Kurmi) P.0. Parhada, Gram Jarhagaon, Teh. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Versus Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) The State Industrial Court, through its Chairman, Raipur 3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. P.S. Koshy and Mr. Vinod Deshmukh. counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnad and Mr. Sameer Sahu, counsel for CIDC. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 25th day of June,2009) hleard. 2) By this petition, the petitioner/employee, seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe orderdated 21.07.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed bythe Industrial Court, Raipur, in Appeal No. 11/IVIPIR/95, (Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Sadheram Jangade) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent employer has been allowed setting asidethe orderdated 28.11.1994 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in Case No. 36/IVIPIR/92 (Sadhram Jangade v. Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & another), whereby the case of the petitioner has been allowed and directed the respondent employer to reinstate the petitioner in service without back-wages. 3) The petitioner is also aggrieved by the common order dated 21.07.2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Cross Appeal No. 12/MPIR/95 (Sadhram Jangade v. Managing Director, IVIadhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & another), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner herein for grant of back-wages has been rejected. Thus, this petition is for reinstatement as well as for grant of back-wages. 3) At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ employee submits that the petitioner is ready to forgo the back wages part, if the respondent/employer reinstates the petitioner in service, to which learned counsel appearing respondenf/ClDC has no objection. In this regard a written consent has been submitted by both the parties. 4) Inviewofforegoing, withoutgoing intothe merits ofthe case, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, interim order passed eariier, if any, is vacated. Satish K. Agiuhotri Judge