^g^. t-< td W.' l*t o'- tt ?!. ffl g! .f-1. ^s^s 1<!!1 g l^II 11-1 |f3 \f-l ^l:^ CB e^ tj ri-- •'.,i ^- ^f :- ^a.'i-h .i» IN! 6 JBi-'- » ^t <^ S sa S ^s • »: ? :•* l.;(»"1; -."•f •Q: N l^ sa (» I--- ..1s.-<-..^* •','r • :W.:i'S3S . fs.' V <• -{D u* ^ ^ CS. (H6n;|Wr..iyi5ticeiPt'itinKerBiwaloer) Writ Petition BS No. <H7ofa^ PETmONER VERSUS RESPQN N3'S lyrahim The ©ommiissionerand an©th6r SNrtA. ©j1s^ts^|iav,^%»3a^ Si^.?ltu|^ni||gi(^erie|||^t^|^ndje(^ ShriH.B.Agia^t^niorjpweSs^^ No.1 IWI^^EttE^(UB taBS3inBBBNffi^ftB2»SSli'NE- •y^^ •;';.:^.&:;i:r-%]:^.'l:^:^i-;.i%iWffiaii^ l:::.:'::..'.^^ij'';'^' ;^./,..:i€|giB'||^iti|ingtge^;pre!S|!rit^?\Mitj^:{)«tttipn:.te to tDi,;opE(eF:||datect;S 22.12.1199? ^I^UF& P^ll^esedK^ diteGtiriQtheretn^atementot^j^lBo^v^ 2. Bnef tee^ of^he ease are^ati^t^ant fe th»^Fe^jM^^|rtiB| tiy the State ligveitiment, jthe ma|er8'»^acltuyit^tefl ^ (^urt. tn the stetemerrt offel^ averrecl byhi^WatiiriMallyj^lv^appotnt^^o^ 1^1) as ari^ Annexyre P^ h®serviG^&^l'^^ Howev^ yid^ry|r^ed|8^^|8^!ii^^ servi(^vWMoy^%|la(m9^^^^ notfceancrigritRt)ui(3onclyct^;ai^|!RquiFy. .! ! ^ (,"': '• 3. Conter^ton crf^he |:^ter^Pii9|1:hat fc ;• ! the s^rviGe CtintraBy ^to tMe^pi'ovisitMT sof S^ction j 25R (|fith^j Ir^ ^ispute ^;; ]Sfieg ec^ing|jfR%j|^er^ :'.Lat>our^yrt|rtasjp^s^iBlei|N^iJi^:^2-lts-'l1^7'!' retren6t^eotl:|ot^^ip!etttWn|iij<^|ri|t|i :he: <^.:flot:|giveii||iny|pnc>l||j^ii:|3^^^teFnii^i^fiis!!|s|||i •^m» llkewise the!itNi®ncSfflent?iccj^Ren|atijm^t^ ».«(; ^rnep ^^fh& i;l stnal Wfi w O il'iiwl ! f^ 3^ -2— Holding his tennination illegal the leamed Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner along with 50 percent back-wages. The timited contention of the petittoner fs that one similarly placed person l^isif Anish (Annexure P-4) had been directed to be refnstated with futl wages and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief. 4. On the other hand supporting the impugned award ft has been argued by Smt. Mukherjee that the facts of each case is required to be considered by the Court and in the case of retrenchment no parity can be claimed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly the petitioner has not filed the copy of the statement of the witnesses recorded before the Labour Court nor he has filed the statement of claim submitted by hfm before the Labour Court. The petitioner has also not filed any document in respwt of the case of KasifAnish with whom he is ctaimlng parity. The petitioner has utterty failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of 10 years for which he remained out of ennployment and there Is no cogent admissibleevidence on record to this effect. As the petltioner has already been awarded 50% back wages while directing for hte reinstatement, he should feel satisfied that he has been granted just relief by the Court below. Thus, I find no illegality with the order impugned passed by the Labour Court. 7. The petition has no substance and the same fes accordingly, dismissed. <%^ Sd/- Pritinker Diyaker Judge 1:.. -—'