^ COURT FEES EXEMPTED BY NOTtRC.^iOhi N0.9@60/D-28TO/X)fl- m.G./W AS SPECiFIED IN SCH€OUt£ I, GFTHECOURT FE.ES ^TT 1878 ^nc^ff. ^-—^^lf? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (L) N0. ^3^-9 /2009 PETITIONER: ^.^' ..-?•' ^^ ^- ..^^' .^"d^^"\ ^"•y~ State of ^hhattisgarh, Through?<^E@3F^st Divisional ^v^J Officer, Forest Division - Kawardha, ^nrt Kabirdham (C.G.) ^ ^ ^..l.-·' VERSUS ^-' ^' RESPONDENTS: 1. Balram Singh Markam, S/o - Ram Dayal, R/o - Dagania, Post Khairbankala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^" 2. The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^' COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT WRiT PETITION (Ll N0. 2309 OF 2@09 Petltaoner State of Chhattisgarh Versus Respondents Balram Singh Markam & Another WRST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDIA (SB : Hon'bie SVSr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/ petJtioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ' (ORAU (Passed on 05th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 In case No. 100/I.D./2007(Ref.), w/hereby the petitioner has been dlrected to relnstate the respondent No.1 with 50% backwages. The petitioner has not chailenge the order of reinstatement except to the extent of grant of 50% backwages, as Is evident from the prayer clause, which reads as under: "10.1. CaU the entire records ofthe instant case forits kind perusal. 10.2. That the order dated 02.5.2008 (Annex. P-1) for grant of 50% backwages be quashed. 10.3. Grant any other refief, which Is deemed f'st m the circumstances of the csse". 2. The Court beiow without considering the facts asto whether the petitioner was gainfuiiy empioyed eisewhere or not, has granted backwages to the extent of 50% without detailing the reasons for grant of 50% backwages. The case of the petitioner/ State is that the respondent No.1 was engaged on work-wise not on reguiar ^. ''%^3^"%t YS^" 4. ^ 2 establishment. Thus, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to any backwages. Having considered aii the facts of the matter, this Court is of the view that grant of 50% backwages without iaying down the foundation for grant of backwages is not just and proper. Accordingiy, the grant of backwages to the extent of 50% Is modtfled to 30%. !n view of the above, the petition Is allowed m part to the extent that the respondent No.1 wouid be entitied to 30% backwages with reinstatement. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok