HIGH COURT OF CHHATTaSGARHiJBiLASPUR Writ PetMon (Sl No. 3S®4of 2008 Petjtsoner Respondents Kashiram Bisen S/o. Shri KJshan Bisen, Shri Ramnagar, Changora ,Bhatha, Blran HighSchoo!, Raipur(CG). Versus 1. President, Pawar Cnnatriya Sangthan, Shant? Vihar Colony, Daganiya, Raipur 2. PresJding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur CWrit Petstion under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of india.) SB: Hon'bteMr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present' Shri S,P, Kaie, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL GRDER (Passed on 10tt day of«luSy,%08) By this petition, the petitloner impugns the award dated 10-3-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, to the extent of deniai of back wages. 2) Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 31-3-2000,. the petitioner preferred a ciaim case befors the Labour Court, Raipur, in case No. 111/9/2006/i.D.Act (Reference). Tne Labour Court, having heard both the parties, passed tne award dated 10-3-2008 (Annexure P/1), hoiding that the termination or'der impugned therein was iliegal. Thus, the respondent No.1 was directed to reinstate the petitioner without backwages. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Articie 227 of the constitution of tncjia, impugning the av^ard dated 10-3-2008 (Annexure P/1) to the extent of deniai of back wages. 3) Having heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused tne pieadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that no foundation was iaid fbr grant of back wages in the Court beiow. The court beiow has not conssdered as to whether the petitiQner was gajnfuiiy e.mpioyed eisewhere or not. Thus, for want of sufficient materiai, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of back wages. |S|>- -•2-' 4) This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articie 226^227 of the Constitution of indla has timited scope to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court. The Hsgh Court can interfere oniy in cases of erroneous assumption of faots or excess of jurisdiotion, refusai to exercsse jurisdictJon, error oflaw apparent on the face of records, arbitrary or capricious exercise of powers of the authority or discrimination, flagrant error in procedure and recording of the pen/erse findings. in the present case, i have not found that any of the ground stated above has been invoked to seek interference ofthis Court. 5) For the reasons stated above, it does not warrant any interference with impugned awarddated 10-3-2008 (Annexure P/1) and as a resulL the petition Is dismissed summariiy. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Kaju