COURT OF MADHYA PRADE AT‘JABAxPURu‘” x : Wlsc Petltwon No. é? fkl§92L' / , K\‘ J I Petitipnérr ‘ Raghu$ar $1nch Dllllmar S/c $hr1 Mohan &1ngh Dh1l11war,, aged about 44 years, Jeep Drlver{ Public Works Department DlviSlen No 1 Burg, Distt Durg (M?) u \ Addres . Near Deawar Derha \‘ ‘ Phokctpara Kasarlalh P O Kasaxldlh Duzg, ulstt Durg«(M.P ) VersuS / Respbndents> (:r 1. The Pre51é1ng O£f1cer, Labour uourt Durg, Dlstt Duro (M P ) 2. The Executlve Englneer, -Public,works Department, DlVls1on No 1 GppoSite. Govt. a Main Haspltal G.H.Rgad Durg, Elstt Burg (M p ) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION O“ INDIA." ‘ m$ma5 «Quenm gggalaku @1200 maW (WE) Xl-HC—78 .. .. W ansrm (W) ‘mmmméw ‘1 , Learned counsel for the petltloner has challenged non-grant ck wages despite the and issue raised in the statement of claihrl“ The issue referred to the Labour court by the Deputy Labour Commissiener reads “Whether removal of Shri Raghubir Singh from. the services is legal a 1d proper? If not, .what relief he direction can be issued to the WWWWFE@W awr§mam$ After hearing both the ‘ have noticed that ther Labou > back wages at all m Its award Court has not discussed the issue of issue of reference was made by the r H Labour Commissmner as under: is entitled to and whalt employer?“ ln the statement of claims at para-9, the pettioner has raised the issue of payment of back wages is as under: view of’ the facts stated on of the second party in discontinuing/ terminating the services of the first party w.e.‘f‘ 1.4. 1 988 invalid. and inoperative. deserves to be reinstated with back wages from nstatement alongwith other That' in the acti \ ((9- hereinbefore, 1:4. 1 988 ' benefits.” till his rei is absolutely illegal, unjustified, The first party therefore, parties and perusing the records l and Without considering the issue of back wages, the Labour Cotrt has passed the impugned award. lt is the case where t Labou‘ Court has failed to consider the issue m é i ’ he k ~ §qf$ w a P0L0%c\& E20 néw miga‘im) w 0 s