COURTFEESEXEMPTED BY.NpTIFtCATIONNO.g96(yD-287WXXt. B/C.Q^BASSPECIFtED INSCHEDULE I <> U OF THE COURT FEES ACT-1-870- .....^^w^ >9r7^ky.. ^^ W THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner: Respondent: Writ Petition CL) No. fc^'S') /2007. <State of Chhattisgarh, through Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Khairagarh, Post Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus •^Sunil Singh, S/o Dashrath Singh Thakur, Ward No. 5, Sethpara, Village & Post Gandai, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI FOR OUASHING THE DVIPUGNED AWARD. HIGH COURT OF CHHA1TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETITION (L) No. 6581 of2007 PETJTIONER : State ofChhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Sunil Singh. WRIT PETTHON LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTfru'TION OF DMDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Aamhotn, J. Present: Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General fbr the State. None for the respondent. ORDERrORAL^ 4. (Passed on 31" day of March, 2010) Despite service of notice, none appears nor is any representation made on behalfofthe respondent. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to tlie award dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, the respondent was reinstatd in service on 26.12.2006. Now, the question remains for adjudication is grant of50% backwages. Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, having recorded the acknowledgement of the petitioner that he has received a sum of Rs. 10,938/- on 01.03.2000 after flie order of removal was passed on 17.02.2000. The labour Court has not dealt with the clear acknowledgement by the respondent and came to a wrong conclusion that removal was bad on account ofnon compliance ofsection 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (tbr short 'the Act, 1947'). Provisoins ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 provides for payment ofone month's notice or in lieu, salary for the period ofnotice.Shri Moorthy lurtlier subinits that the respondent No. 1 has been paid wages after ^fef^ 1 '•iSi removal order was passed. Thus, section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 has fiilly been complied with. 5. On perusal ofthe award, it does not appear that the Court below has not considered the aspect ofthe payment, which was made duly or the same was in accoradance wifh the provisions of law. Thus, the findings recorded for non-compliance of the provisoisn of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 is erroueous and unsustainable since the respondent has already been reinstated. The benefit ofgrant of 50% backwages cannot be yanted to the respondent as the Court below has not dealt with the requirement of grant of back wages that the employee was anywhere employed gainfally, except that the statement ofthe respondent that he was unemployed, has not been controverted bythe petitioner. 6. It is well settled principle of law that reinstatement does not follow award offull backwages. It depends on facts and circumstances ofthe case. In the case on hand, the finding ofthe Courf below fhat pi-ovisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 has not been complied with, has been held as erroneous in the precedine paras. Smce the respondent has been reinstated in service, the order is not being quashed. However, grant of 50% backwages would not be just and proper in the facts and situation ofthe case. 7. Looking from all angles, particularly since the respondent has been re- employed in service, it is just and proper to quash the impugned award dated 09.11.2006 (Annexure P/l) to the extent of grant of 50% backwages. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed, partly to the extent indicated above. Annt Sd/- Sarish K.Agnihotri Judge Q fSE UC2i;^nsa^iirii^W3SCSS^EE^e^^"ii