^ y COURT FEES EXEMPTEO By'NoflFICATtO^a^O/D-WO-Wa. K?'^S%E^%IE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (L\ N0. ^^; F /2009 3^9te Beneh PETITIONER: RESPQNDENTS: 1. ^^ ^?^ . •^^' State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Kawardha,(C.G.) VERSUS Aghan Singh Yadav, S/o - Chaitram, R/o - Village Mathpara Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA £.r-:^ .^ (Iv:'^ ^. .. y i ^ %^./. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR WRST PETITION (U N0. 2315 OF 2009 Petltioner State of Chhattisgarh Versus Respondents Aghan Singh Yadav & Another WRiT PETiTION UNDER ART3CLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnahotri, J.) Present:- Shri Shushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER (ORALi (Passed on 04th day of January, 2011) 1. The petjtloner impugns the order dated 5.6.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Industria! Dispute Act, 1947 jn case No. 55/I.D./2007(Ref.), whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with 50% backwages. The petltioner has not chaiienge the order of reinstatement except to the extent of grant of 50% backwages, as is evident from the prayer ciause, which reads as under: "10.1. CalS the entlre records ofthe instant ca.se for its kind perusai. 10.2. That the order dated 5.6.2008 (Annex. P-1) for grant of 50% backwages be quashed. 10.3. Grant any other reUef, which Is deemed fit 'm the circumstances of the case". 2. Having examlned the case of the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that grant of 50% backwages with reinstatement is just and proper, as the order of reinstatement is not under chailenge. ^ 'i ^>sy" v^^^..,:^^£^-?" The Court below has considered the fact while holding that the respondent No.1 was not gainfully employed elsewhere during his liiegai removal from the empioyment. It was heid that the petitioner be reinstated with 50% backwages. Since, the order of reinstatemenf is not under chailenge, it is not just and proper to Interfere with the grant of 50% backwages with reinstatement. There is no iliegaiity and irregularity in the order impugned herein. Thus; no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of indla, by this Court. Accordingiy, this petitlon is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun ^w^