:bi THE HIEH CQUR‘!‘ QE QEIHATT1§QA£§i AT BILASPUR writ ggtitian [$1 No, 3‘v X j 12mm P£TiTlOiVER i/ State of Chhattisgarhi Thraugh the District Chief Medical 8:. Health Officer, Government msirict Héspital Burg, District : Durq [Chy‘mtii‘sgiai‘hE Versus RE$PQN§EN$ Abdul Kayyumf S/O Late Abdui Kasim, aged about 4.0 years, R/O Behind. Office of the Chief Medica! Qfficer Durg; District Hesiiitai Durg {Chhatiieqgrm (. WEI? PETETEQN UNDER iiiRTICLE 226 GF THE €$$5TITUTIGN GF ENSIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 4 . Writ Petition (L) Ne. 34 a: 2007 Petitioner : State of Chhattisgarh, through theDistrictIChief {v i Medical & Heaith omcer Versus Respondent : Abdul Kayyum §§: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnii'lotri, J. Present: Mr. $atish Gupm. Dy. Govt. Advocate for the petitionerfSme. Q R D E R Passed en this 29'“ day c! Fakruary, 2%?) 1 . According to ieamed counse! appeaiing fa! the petitianer, the eward‘ was ’ 1 paused by the. Labour Court, Ding in Pase No. ZADAntlReferenm/ZQM' ‘ r on 29.7.2002 (P/1) 'directing reinstatementof the petitioner'w‘imfullback - wages. payable within a petiod of 60 days. The petitioner did notprefer i any petition before the High Court against the award dam! 29.7.2002. passeo by the Labour Court. 2. The respondent proceeded in execution before the Labour court. The Labour Court in Case No. 47in). Act. Civiii’20t35. vide orderdated 3.12007 (P12) heid that the Labour Court, earlier, vide award dated dA 2a.:.20u2 'l A Ah directed l U reinetateineni with fuii b-"-k wagee, whiri’i was net compiied with. The award attained nnaiity as no petition was filed in‘the High Court against t. e said crdcr. Accerdingly, the Labour Court in ;‘, exercise cf his jurisdictien under Section 33-G (2) of the industria!‘ ; Disputee Am, 1.94.7 directed the Chief Medina! Qmeer, Government-Vt Hospital, Durg to deposit Rs. 2,98,000/- in the Court within a: period of 15 ' days. i “W “ ‘ l @ Admiuediy. no case is pending in the High Court and mismy has been gmntea‘ by any of the Court or Tribunai. Thus, the petitioner is iiabie Tm honour ihe older dated 29.7.2002. The cider dated 3.12m? passed by the‘ I- unbuul --‘- Cuun't -.~ .n‘ uud -- I 9 “-_ nu?! .- a 93- k4; "\ m‘ ‘ihé mdh I— ‘ i n -I I 915W : ‘n Ant, ‘ ‘ 1947 does not call for any interfarence, en the mere execution of ihe award dated 29.1.2002. which remains uncha!!enged and has ahined the i ‘ fma!§ty. It we" settled that the remedy of a person aggrieved by such a decree is to have it set aside in a duiy constituted .iegai proeeedingsvor by a superior court faiiing which he must obey the command of the decree. The ‘ peiiiioner has noi iaken recourse i0 any remedy seiiing aside. the award N .r ans the award attained hnaiity. Thus, this CoUrt in exercise of its f jurisdiction under Artieie 226 of the Constitation of indie cannot go intothe findinn gf the {acts ¢vnnnt in been g! ‘éuy‘sdictimal grim and crush“ V eonc-iusions are perverse. ’ i The writ petition is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto oasis. it is ordered accordingiy. "x ‘ Sdl- un In n an: n. , vnvvr u«vu sun-u u-unv an“: agon- Satish K. Agnihot‘ri ' Judge