\ v” V \ ‘ " *“ . £ - W " m ”Hi: Hlea vOURT On ivgaorma PmADEsEH’AT JlxBALPU? Ed; mum ummumumm } ‘ _ wsoy on 9 Ph’TITlowHR ;— B p. ‘qharroa Even oL Shrn. s Q ?‘””‘§£$;g / aged about 3A yuars ragwdwat 9E Patankar Cal’ony, ard No. 19, uurg. Wmsmi, Rmgsgnwmwg :_ 1.. Perm wrap miggm, Ltd” ( A igovt. of India under Lak mg) ,thr‘jugh' the vv qdnaglng munchx dh *ldi, Distr urg, ¢ ‘ ' 2. Matt; eanGrgl Managar, Eerro ;§¢ca Nigaai, Ltd” Bhiia i, aiSt‘r ict bur :x Tw a T \ E§T"wlgw HNQQg ARE Li 6 22 ' ITUTirrN Q mDm . b 22 mkr: "»a_L ~- - 9 @ mt 3‘ p g. Xl-HC-78 WWWW my? ua, gyyg‘gg W§m$ .- ...........u........... Via 200 , mam (W) gamma 311%?! mamawm $m3né21 13—09-2005 Mlss Sharmula Smghai Ie arned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Koshy, Iearned Lounsel for the respondents. Heard. Mr. Koshy, Iearned cou sel for the respondents submits that thisk ’ matter stands disposed of by o er dated 20.1 1 .1995, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jab Ipur. On perusai of the pape s i find that M.C.C. No.658 of 1994, the review petition tiled by the petiti ner was allowed and on the same day the main petition i.e. MP. No.3 07 of 1989 was heard and the Court r dismissed the petition with an o servation that the petitioner, if so advised, imay approach the Labour C urt against the order of the Disciplinary der of Appeiiate Authority. The petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Authority and also against the the respondents, an application w s tiled before the Labour Court and the petitioner/workman succeeded efore the Labour Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has been reinstated compliance with the order of the Labour Court. The petition by mi'sta , Subsequently, accordi g to the learned counsel for it appears, has been transferred to this Court. The petition already sta ds disposed of by order dated 20.1 1 .1 995. l 5dr- l Satish K. Agnihotri . ,, Judge L r k i