COURTF.EE BY NOTiRCATION N0.9960^D^87W()^ 8/C.G705AS 8PECyiEDjN_SCHH?ULE i &HOFTHE COURT FEES ACT 187& ^ Bin^la ?1^^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.(UNO. ^3 ) lt /2009 ^ PETITIONER: ^-^.^ ?^'R^^"" State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS ^%" RESPONDENTS: Panch Bai, W/o - Amrit Lal, R/o - Raj Mahal Chowk, Kawardha, (C.G.) The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITiON (U N0. 2314 OF 2009 Petltioner Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh Panch Bai & Another WR!T PETSTION UNDER ARTiCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDiA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Shushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. (ORALI (Passed on 04th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Industriai Dispute Act, 1 947 in case No. 99/I.D./2007(Ref.), whereby the petitioner has been directed to relnstate the respondent No.1 with 25% backwages. The petitioner has not challenge the order of reinstatement except to the extent of grant of 25% backwages, as Is evident from the prayer clause; which reads as under: "10.1. Caii the entire records of the snstant case forits kind perusai. 10.2. That the order dated 9.5.2008 (Annex. P-1) for grant of 25% backwages be quashed. 10.3. Grant any other reiief, which is deemed fit m the circumstances of the csse". 2. Having examined the case of the petitioner and perused the order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that grant of 25% backwages with rejnstatement is just and proper, as the order of reinstatement is not under chalienge. :i ^ %^.^^^ ^'^ The Court below has considered the fact while hoiding that the respondent No.1 was not gainfully empioyed elsewhere during his iliegai remova! from the employment. It was he!d that the petitioner be reinstated with 25% backwages. Since, the order of reinstatement is not under challenge, it is not just and proper to interfere with the grant of 25% backwages with reinstatement. There is no lilegality and irreguiarity in the order impugned herejn. Thus; no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by this Court. Accordingiy, thls petitlon is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun