Ss^&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petitipn No^335 of 2002 Petitioner : General Maa^er (O.S.D.) Bengal Nagpur Cotton MiUs Rajnandgaon (Chhatdsgarh) Respondent Versus :1. Goverdhaa, S/o SukhJal, R/o Rampur Post-Jungalpur, Rajnaadgaon. 2. Industrial Court, Through Meniber Judge, Raipur. Single Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri Sbri Viaay Pandey, Advocate for the Petitkiner. None for the Respondents. ORAL ORDER (12tllJaiiuaiy, 2006) ;iil®i$^ 1. The respondeat No. 1 was appoiated as Appnentice. After coinpletion of period of apprenticeship he continued to work tffl 10.1.1984 without regularizatiou. On 11.1.1984, serviceofthe respondent No. 1 was discontinued by oral iustructions. 2. Being aggrieved, fhe order of discontinuation of service, the respondent No. 1 filed an appUcation before fhe Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 48/MPIR Act/87. The Labour Court by its order dated 13.5.1993 held that the service of fhe respoadent No. 1 was tenninated without notice and as such it was violative of fhe provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. However, looking to fhe facts of the case, fhe petitioner was reinstated ia service wifhout back wages. 3. The respondent No. l as weU as tfae petitioner Mauageinent fUed two appeals separately before ffae Industrial Court. The respondent No. 1 ffled an appeal chaUenging the order offhe Labour Court to the extent that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be granted fuU back wages. The petitioner Manageinent ffled aa appeal chatlengiag the order of fhe Labour Court graating reinstateinent of service to the Respondent No. 1. Both fhe appeals were aumbered as Appeal No. 194/MPIR Act/93 aad 189/MPIR Act/93 respectivety. 4. The ludustrial Court disposed of both the appeals by coiainon judginent aad order dated 13.12.2001, directing reuistateinent without back wages. Accordiagly, both the appeal filed by the respondent No. l, the petitioner was disniissed. 5. The inatter was taken up &r heanng on 1.11.2002, none appeared on belialf of the petitioner, tfiereafter, the petition was a^sdn. listed on 5.12.2002 aad the leamed counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjoununent. On 7.11.2005, again none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Shri Vinay Paadey, leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits that the petitioner coiapany has been Uquidated, wifhout any inaterial facts or evidence in.support ofthis contention. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and perused docuiaents appended to the petition. 8. The Labour Court passed fhe order on 13.5.1993, directing reinstatenaent of fhe service of the Respondent No. 1 wifhout aay payinent of back wages. The petitioner neither reinstated ia service aor complied with the provisions of Section 65 (3) of fhe M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "MPIRA^, even-after the present unpugned order was passed on 13.12.2001, the petitioner has deliberately aud iatentionaUy failed to coinply with the statutoiy provisions of Section 65 (3) of MPIRA. Tlie petitioner bas also aot further obtaiued auy iateriin reUef or stay of the impugned order by this court. 9. Looking iato the conduct of the petitioner firstly by not appearfaj before the court on several occasions and secondly by not coiaplying wifh the provisions of Section 65 (3) of MPIRA, it is desirable that this petition be disinissed. Even otherwise there is no inaterial ureglilarity and there is sufficient and cogent evidence to support reasoning aad decision of the iinpugued order. This court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India has lunited scope of interference wifh fhe orders passed by the Labour Court as weU as Industrial Tribuiial. 10. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner is directcd to coinply witfa the oider dated 13.12.2001, passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 189/MPIR Act/93 & Appeal No. 194/MPIR Act/93 within a period of three inonths froia today ie. 12.01.2006. 11. In fhe facts ofthecase, this petition stands dKinissed. No orier as to costs. SatishK.Agiiiiiotri Judge