d) . c<XH!rT FEt»BXEMPTeO 3YNOT!(:tcAT^NO. a960/D-287MG<J- Bic-G^5/ASS^(3REDTNSCHfcDUlE & OFT.HSCOURTFEESACTlizO" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P^(L)J<K)^313 /2009 5r SWigte Bench ^- ^ PETITIONER: "3^ (>:-"'^^>""' ^•••••:.;<^" RESPONDENTS: 2. <--State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Kawardha, lii'yf^ Kabirdham (C.G.) ^ VERSUS Sarupa Bai, W/o - Shanker Yadav, R/o - Rajmahal Chowk, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFLINDIA "^^•^ //"~"^ \ 9 k-ssh i a H3GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITSON (U N0. 2313 OF 2009 Petitiooer Versus ResRondents State of Chhattisgarh Sarupa Bai & Another WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotrl, J.) Present:- Shri Shushii Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh,. Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER (ORALI (Passed on 04th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Jndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 in case No. 65/l.D./2007(Ref.), whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 wlth 20% backwages. The petitioner has not chaiienge the order of reinstatement except to the extent of grant of 20% backwages, as is evident from the prayer ciause; which reads as under: "10.1. Cal! the entire records ofthe instant case forits kindpenjsal. 10.2. That the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annex. P-1) for grant of 20% backwages be quashed. 10.3. Grant any other rellet which is deemed fit In the circumstanoes of the case". 2. Having examinedthe case of the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that grant of 20% backwages with reinstatement is just and proper, as the order of reinstatement is not under challenge. -^^^^- .fi^^ "^. "•^^^^ ^ 2 3. The Court below has considered the fact whlle hoiding that the respondent No.1 was not galnfuliy empioyed elsewhere during hls iliegai removal from the employment. It was heid that the petitioner be reinstated with 20% backwages. Since, the order of reinstatement is not under chailenge, it is not just and proper to interfere with the grant of 20% backwages with reinstatement. There is no illegaiity and irregularity in the order impugned herein. Thus, no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitutlon of India, by this Court. 4. Accordingiy, this petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok