HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2005 4O Ganga years, Prasad Occupation Yadav S/o Booking Shri Dubraj ‘Agent Yadav In Aged MPSRTC about Presently Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, R/o Babupara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). PETITIONER Versus 1‘ Industrial Court, Raipur, Through its Member Judge, RESPONDENTS Raipur (C.G.) 2. Labour Court, Ambikapur, Through its Labour Judge, Ambikapur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Mr. Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Das Vaishnav and Mr. Sameer Sahu, counsel for respondent— 3/CIDC. 1 ORDER (ORAI) (Passed on this 25"“ day of June, 2009) \l‘t Heard, 2) By this petition, the petitioner/employee, seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur, in .Appeal No. 409/MPIR/96, (Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Ganga Prasad) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent employer has been allowed setting aside the order dated 22.08.96 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambikapur, in Case No. 6/95/MPIR (Ganga Prasad v. Divisional Manager, MPSRTC & Anr.), whereby the case of the petitioner has been allowed and directed the respondent employer to reinstate the petitioner in service without back—wages. t. y; §§" 3) The petitioner is also aggrieved by the common order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Industrial' Court, Raipur in Cross Appeal No. 407/MPIR/96 (Ganga Prasad v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner herein for grant of back— wages has been rejected. Thus, this petition is for reinstatement as well as for grant of back-wages. 3) At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employee submits that the petitioner is ready to forgo the back wages part, if the respondent/employer reinstates the petitioner in service, to which learned counsel appearing for the respondent/CIDC has no objection. In this regard a written consent has been submitted by both the parties. 4) ln view of foregoing, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, interim order passed earlier, if any, is vacated. Satish K. Agnihotri} Judge Sdl- Gowri / " W 91g“? ' g