HIffl-i COURTQF GHHATTIS6ARHATNLASPUR W.P-No. 2118 of 2002 PetiTioner &hureiai Ncgwanshi, S/o Bhadur, R/o- Vilktge - Maytrkund, Post- PaiSimeta. Sub Tehsil - fiandai. Tehsil - Chuikhadan, Distf. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus * Respondent 1. Pr-esiding Officar, Labour Court. .Ltajnonc!gaon tC.fc?.) 2. Oivisional Forest Officer, Senerai Forest bivision. State of M.P- (Noui C.6.), POST - Khairagarh, Distt. WRTT PETTTOIN UNbER ARTICE 227 OF THE CONSmzmON Single Bench : Mon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agniho'h'i. J. Shri 1-1. B; Agarwa!, Senior Advoaite wi'th M.s Rinki Tamr(ri<ar, Advocate for •riie petitionar. , WS Sunita Jain, femel Lawyer tor the rsspondent No.ii. ORALORDER (Passeel on this 17H1 day ofjuly, 200S) 1. By this petition -riie petitioner impugns the award dated iO.1.2002, passed by the Labour Court, Rujnandgaon in Case. No. 23/I.b. Act(Reference5/2001 to •rt-ie extent of deniai of back-wages- 2- The petitioner hos not laid ony foundation for gnmt of back-uiages in -H-ie Court belouu. On reading of the impugried nuur'ci, it is cfear that +he netitioner has not even nr-essed for arant of bock-uisged. 3- It is wel! settied principk of taw that back-woges can be auiarded uihen •Hie employee estnblishes -thst he was not goinfully employed etseuihere. For want of evidence and documents. it connot he he!d that fhe petitioner was not empfoyed elsewi'iere, gainfufiy. Thus, •there is no merit in this case as no case has been made out for gront of back-wages- ; 4. Accordingly,the petition is dismissed No order asto costs.l -i—A. Thakur .Sd/- i