T ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition.(L)NQ,,^^^ PETITIONER : Santosh Kumar Janghel, S/o Shri Tehgu Ram Janghel, Aged about 39 years, R/o Gudihari (Kundrapara) Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : l.ChhattisgarhState Civil Supply Corporation through Manager, Bal Ashram Kachari Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur 2.President Officer Labour Court Industrial Dispute Act, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : Shri M.K. Baig, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 03rd ofApril, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns the award dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Raipur, in Case No. 2/20011.D. Act (Reference), to the extent ofrefusal ofgrant ofback wages. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the Labour Court, while granting reinstatement, has declined to grant back wages on the principal of "no work no pay" without holding that whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not. He further submits that "no work no pay" principle is applicable ifthg employee remains absent from the duty on his own, not in the case where the petitioner has been restrained from working on account of passing ofthe removal order. 3. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is trite law that, wherein, the termination order passed against an employee, has been set aside on the ground that order was illegal and reinstatement was granted to the employee, the employee may not be entitled to full back wages. It depends on the facts ^«t:-^! ?-^^! s° situation of the case asto whether the punishment awarded would be sufficient ifthe back wages is not granted to the employee and the employee is reinstated in the service. Further it is also necessary to determine whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not. 4. It appears that leamed Labour Court has examined all the aspects of the matter and allowed the application with reinstatement without back wages. 5. This Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/2007 ofthe Constitution oflndia has limited scope to interfere with the findings ofthe Labour Court. The High Court can interfere only in cases of erroneous assumption of facts or excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on t he face of records, arbitrary or capricious exercise of powers of the authority or discrimination, flagrant error in procedure and recording ofthe perverse fmdings. In the present case I have not found that any of the ground stated above has been invoked to seek interference ofthis Court. 6. For the reasons stated above, it does not warrant any interference with impugned order dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure P/5) and as a result, the petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahu 1,