M HIG-H COURT OF CHHATTIS§ARH AT 3ILASPUR WE No. 4292 af 2004 Paw‘i‘l'ioner Ja9d€sh Pmsad Mahobiya, 592d abeu? 58 years, 5/0 Late Shri Bhuvun Luf Mahobiya, Ex. Driver, Rajmrodgaan Dapa'r. of MPSRTC, Rssidem ef Bard Pam, Ward Ne. 27. Jai Mahnka{i Temple Chawk, Burg 0:6}. Versus Rea-'fjanden'r 1. The bepm' Manager, M. P. Sfa-fe Read Transpor'r Carporarhn, Rajmndguori sepof‘ Rajmndgwn (C(é). The Mmaging Director, Chhamsgarh Iiifi‘asfmcmmf Deveiopmenf Carpaiiwitm, 5has+ri Chawk, 6E. Road, Raipur- (CG). N WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICE 226/227 GF THE cOEéTITUTION ‘ gérgia Bemh : Her! £2 Mr, Stwsh K. Agmhefri, J. Ms Mamm Shrivasirava, Advacate. for The pe‘rifioner‘ Nana far +512 msporuaiaiifs. akAL QREJER (Passed an this 315* day of Jubu 2008) The paji'fianér, being aggrieved by fhe arder‘ dwed 8.10.2004 (Armexuri P/l), passed By 'H'ae Indus-trial Caur'f iv: Civil Appml M1 188/M.P.I.R.[A-II/2OG3 (Jagdish Pmsad Mahobia Vs. Depa‘f Manager & ano'fhzr) +a +hz ex'i’errr af m‘i‘gsal +0 gmwf af 100% back wages, has fiied wis petifim. The services 5f fhe pei’i‘i’ianer was fevminufed on accoun'l‘ 0f convic‘finr. of $2 pefifianer by 1412 Judiciai Mngisfm'fa Fir-sf Class, Raipur in Crime No. 927/97, ubder +he provisions bf Sac-kiwi 279 abd 337 5f fbz Indian Pam! cwa, 'm undergn simpia imprisanmanf mid pby a fine af Rs. 660/—. The pe-I‘i-Honer preferred an appiica‘i'inr. hi pa to befam 'Hie Labaur Cour-h Rajmrpdgam, under 5ecfian 31(3) rend wi+h Sac'tian 61 Of fhe Madhya Prndash Indus'frial Reimians Act 19é0. The Labour Caur'r, Ra‘jnandgaan, affer having cons%dered a” +312 fac+s held 141a? +he order of fermEm‘fim-i was dispmpar-‘I'iom‘fe, 3‘hus, a§}awa& +512 appi§ca+im1 1" 'H-ue ex'l'an't of gmrrf of reinsfa‘temerrt wii‘hom‘ batk wages. The back wages was naf gmwhzd by way 5f puriishment Bzing aggrieved, 1412 pe‘rifiaaer preferred an appeal before We Indus'h‘ial Caur'f, Chha‘Hisgai-h Raipur, beiag Civil Appea! No. 188/MPIRJA-HI2003, chaHengEng 'Fae refusal af back wages +5 3+!e pe+i+ioner. The resaandem Na.2 also fHed aa appeal against ‘f‘ae arder- cf aeiasfafemewt The Iaaus'h‘ial Court af‘fer' heméng bo+h +he paF'Hes ailawed 'E‘he appea! of ‘rhe pe‘H'rianer partly and graa'led 5G% back wages. The pefl#ianer hasfiled 1'l1is pe‘H‘l'ian challengiag ‘l'he aoa-graaf of 100% back wages. 4. Learned caunsel appearing far +he pe'fi'i'ianer‘ submi‘l's +ha‘l' fl‘ie pe‘i'Hiai-uer was working as Driver in ‘ll-ue Madhya Pradesh 5+a+e Road Traaspar'l €orpara+ian Wklle dSsahargiag his du+ies as a Driver, +l1e vehicle me? wi‘H-u a‘a accident On flie allega'fion 'of aegligerrr driviag, The criminal case was regis+ered and +he pei'i'lianer was convic'red and sem‘enced fa simple imprisarime‘nf arid fine af Rs. 600/-. 0a an apaeal, preferred by The pefifianer, +he' Firs'i‘ Addi'i‘ianal Sessians Judge has canver+ed fl‘ie award af simple imprisamaen+ in fine and he was sen'i'enced in, pay a 'la'fai fine of Rs; 1000/-. Thus, 'iixe pe‘l’i'iioner is enfi‘fied +0 gran‘l af 160% back wages. gi p0 . i The pei‘i‘iianer has na‘i‘ laid any faunda‘i'ion far gran? of back-wages in ihe Caur'l' belaw fha'l he was na'i' gainfully employed elsewhere. I‘i is well se‘d'led principle af law “the? back-wages can be awarded when fhe emplayee es'lablishes 'l‘ha'i' he was no? gainfully employed elsewhere. Far wan'i‘ af evidence and dacumen‘is, i'l canna'l be held \\s\\\ ,/ \ / / ME ‘H-ua-t +hz pe+E+imer was now‘ ampbyed elsewhere, gairafully. Thus' ##mre is rm mark? in +his case as m any: has haw made ou'r for gran?” 0f 1OG% back-wages. Accarding!y, na inferfzrenca i's warmi1+ed irc 'Hw: impugr‘ed award passad by +ha Iridusa‘ria} Can-rt Chha'H’Ssgarh, Ruipma The pzfiffor$ is dismissed. Sd/- ‘ {3 swish K. Whom; Judge ‘