p. l1 ^•^•''w' '"^eP^ '..>;' RESPQNDENT: B.ENCI IH THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S3f-) No, 3'3>d'>'L--Of2011 fs^^— PETmONER: v—Umasbaaker Tiwari S/Q Sbn iif /^^w^ 1SL4JW ^^ —TW )lA-<<2-*>^r K^«?{^°1'^!^- NQ^I' SilaspuF, TAsfl Versus Tfae I Chhat'iasgarfa DevelQRinent Gliadi Chowk WRIT PETITION UNOER ARTICLE 227 CONSTITU'nON QF IN&IA Mans CsrpQra,tiQB, pur (CG). 'THE !'^l'"^'HTi7T^?t~t-:i':'.!^ ?r XI-HC—78 75Ef ^ww^^ giflly'is, f^cll'yy .^t^^sa^^ 3^(1 T^7 (1i?f3^?) an^iqilfsTO; wi 311^1 wnqT Dsep^ ^Bnwgfggaii^ SB : Hon'bie Shri Maninara Mohan Sh 30^)6.2011 titie snn Bnarai Kajput, oounsel ror tn| Heard on admission. Learned counsel Tor the petition^r been reinstated with 50% backwages, tijie paid to him because the industrial Court| P/4) recorded that the respondent ma\ according to the apportioned iiability oev^i' He submits that in view of such order petrtioner is not being paid any amount| per the order of the Industrial Court, th^ the liabiiity only to the extent of 18%. Tr|i petrtioner and against the respondent. maKe payment or baoKwages as per the| How the liabiiity wouid be ap[ji erstwhiie Corporation of M.P. is a counterpart in the State of M.P. but on cannot be wlthheid. With t'ne aforesaid observations, t)' qwfeftT'qTOCT ^'lyst ^3fRpT3i^I rivastava, J. s petitioner. ;r submits ihat though the petitioner has amount under the award 'nas not been |vide its order dated 23/8/2010 (Annexure / reoover the amount under the liability ;en the two states upon reorganization. Ipassed by the Industrial Court, now the by the respo'ndent on the preiext that as respondent is liabie to pay, to disoharge |e award has been passed in ravour ofthe "herefore, the respondent is obiiged to sward to the petitioner. crtioned between the respondent and between the respondent and their :hat ground, implementation of ihe award mttter ie petition is nnaliy aisposed orr. Sd/- ; ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge 4- 1[