•2'"< ^^^^^^i^^L^^^^'^.tl •\.> IN THE HIGK COUR2 OE' JUDIGATuREsaiHAITZEGARH SBIU^SPUR Writ petition 2-6^<> /200i P3TITIQNER ^-0 .;yS^i§S@^^^S.^^& 1« The State of Chhattisgarh, through Divisional Employinent Officer» Korba, .Dis-fcrictjKorba (Chhattisgarh.) Versus 1. Brijkishore Singh» S/o Jaisingh, Ex-Motor Driver, purani Basti, Brahman Mohalla/ Kumhar-oarat Korba. (Ghhattisgarh) 2. Che Presiding Officer, Labour Gourt, Bilaspur Under Industrlal Dispute Act, Bilaspur (ChhatUsgarh) ^-^ ^JT PS2ITZON UNDER ART2GLES 226/227 QS' aiECOtISTI'PUTION i_£l OF INDIA '3-HC-22 (3) •3^' ^!4jH^, •E?Tffni^^ T5RTI^< ^.••' _c^...s^^.h\... 10 ·tlti.Si &Tt?r^i Iq^t^ SH^ T^il'^"?"?^ airai^RTiWR^f 'i7Ta!?"7F? ^nRH TI T'i'St <!<i«R ~v sv^m ~s<!S'a 10S-OTWXS: SIui Raabir Singh, Govt. Advcjcate for fhe petitioner. Shri S.P.Kate, learned coiinsel for thcrespondeuts. i Having heard Shri Ranbir Sin|gh, leanaed counsel for fhe ^etitioner, fhc Court is not incln^ed to cntertain tfais writ Ipetitfon. | 'i ' 1 1 The tennination of fhe respondent No.l has been i . . _ .. 1 liuashed for noa-eoinpliance of pro^isions contamed in Section s S5(F) of the Industrial Disputes Ac^, 1947. It is not disputed |fhat thc said respondent No. 1 had teerved under the petitioner &oin Februaiy 1992 to April 200p when Us services were |erminated. It is further not disputed fhat a siun of Rs.4720/, Which was cquivalcnt to one luonthls salaiy was oflfercd, which yyas obviousfy not in coiiformily wi^h tfae provisions contained t . \ . . ! pi Section 25{F) ofthe Act. On fhe abovc admitted po&ition no enror has bccn i committed by ffae Laboiir Court, Bilaspur, in settit^-aside the brder of termination and ordermg reinstateinent with back wages. ] In view of above observatijans, the petition stands pisinissed. L Sdf- P.C. Naik Judge &^--