HIGH C§URT OF CHHATTISGIXRH: SILASFUR wm Peiition No. Q2§0 of 2W2 chankar Lai S/e Dauiat Bawsod RIO Basantpur Rajeev Nagar Ward NO 3a Naar Buraal Dan a ‘06 D;s€t Ramaridgaon (CG). V&:sus Labour Court, ?etitioner Respondents 1 . Presiding Officer; Rajnandgaon (CG). 2. Gm vamrat Hanvauabh Jam Bid‘ Pvt mi Ranveer Bid! WorKs Kampme Ling Distt Ra'nanugasn (CG) {Writ Petition under Amcie 226 of the Constitutrcm of lm’ia.) SB: Hon”ble’ Mr. $atish K. Agnihoiri, J. Fresent: Aarawa} Sr Ahvocatewrth ShrrPankarAoram/ai wmsei for thn pet troner S. 5 V VB Sn IV K Sharma caunse! Fortne reapcnaent No.4. URN. 0R§ER grassed en 9‘“ day er dung 2998} By this peftiiicn, the petitioner chaHenges the vaiidity of {he award Gated 23— -’ 3m (Annexure P/3) passed by the Endustrial Court, m Case No. 24i§f .Act (Reference) 1997, to the extent of deniai G? fzaCK-wages. 2) Learned ceunse! appearing for the peri‘iiener subm‘rts that the eeiitioner m his statement of ciaim has specificatry prayed far grant of fur} back—wages. The award whire directing reinstatement 0f the petitioner as declined to grant fuki back-wages, is withcur rhythm or reason. 1,3) i have heard ieamed counsei for the parties, perused the pieae’ings ane i documents appended thereto. 4) On perusal of the award, it is found that the petitioner has not iaici any ‘ foundation for grant of back-wages in the Court beiow. The petitioner ought to have pieaeied that the petitioner was not gainfuiiy empioyeoi eisewhere or he has no source of income. Now, at this stage, without there being any 'pieao'ing and j considering on that aspect, it cannot be considered and decéded asto whethe the r .. petitionerwas empioyed sewhere or not ""“ V"?U 2 “ ._1’ I it is weii sewed urincipie cf Eaw that back‘wages cart be awarded when the empioyee estab‘is‘nes that he was not gainfuny empioyed eésewhere. Fer want <3? evidence and documents, it cannot be held that the netiticner was ne‘t empicyed eise‘where, gainfuiiv. Thus, tn re is no merit m this case as no case is made out for grant of back—wages, 5) m View 0f the foregoing. no iriterfereme is warranted with the impugned rder. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs Sdl— Satish K. Arii’hoti Judgegr i I , " i