HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 337 of 2002 Petitioner General Manager (O.S.D.) Bengal Nagpur Cotton MiUs Rajnandgaon (Cbhattisgarh) Respondent Vefsus :1. Kushal Kumar, S/o Jaitram, R/o Lakholi Ward No. 27, Rajnandgaon. 2. Industrial Court, Through Meiaber Judge, Raipur. SIn^e Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satisli K. Agnibotri Shri Viuay Pandey, Advocate for fhe Petitioner. None for the Respondenfs. QRALORDBR (12dlJaiiuaiy, 3006) 1. The responderit No. 1 w^ appointed as Apprentice on 12.01.1990. Aflter coinpletion ofperiod Ofapprehticeship he continued to work tiU l6;03,1992 without regularization. On 16.3.1992, service of f&e respondent No. 1 was discontinued by oral instructions. 2. Beiag aggrieved, fhe order of discontinuation of service, the respondent No. 1 filed au appUcation before the Labour Court, Rajriandgaon in Case No. 76/MPIR Act/92. The Labour Court by its order dated 11.7.1994 heldfhatthe service ofthe respondent No. 1 was tenmiaated wifhout notice and as such it was violative of the provisions of the InduStrial Relations Act. However, looldng to the facts of the case, the petitipner was reinstatcd in service aad was gTanted 50% backwages. 3. The respondent No. 1 aswellastliepetitionerManagementfiledtwo appeals separately before fhe Industrial Court. The respQndent No. l , <. «>.: •^ 8. filed au appeal chaUengiug the order OftheLabouTCourtto the extent fhat the respondent No. I was entitled to be graated 100% back wages. The petitioner Manageinent filed an appeal chaUengmg direction offhe Labour Gourt grantnig reiastateinent with 50% back wages. Both the appeals were niuubered as Appeal No. 64/MPIR Act/96 and 63/MPIR Act/96 respectivety. The Industrial Court disposed of both the appeals by coirunon judginent and order dated 25.7.2000, directiag reinstatenient without back w^;es. Accordingly, the appeal of fhe respondent No. 1 was dismissed and appeal of fhc petitioner was atlowed partly. The inatter was taken up for hearing on 1.11.2002, none appeared on behalf of titie petitioner, thereafter, fhe petition was agam listed on 5.12.2002 aad fhe learaed couasel for fhe petitioner prayed for adjoununent. On 7.11.2005, agaia npne appeared on behalf of fhe petitioner. Shri Vinay Pandey, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner coinpany has been Uqujdated, wifhout aay material facts or evidence ia support oftfais contention. I have heard learaed counsel for the petitioner and perused documents appended to the petition. The Labour Court passed fhe order on 11.07.1994, directing reinstateinent and payment of back waQes. The petitioner neither reiastated nor coiaplied wifh the provisions of Section 65 (3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereiaater referred to as MPIRA"), even after the present inipugned order was passed on 25.07.2000, the petitioner has deUberately and iatentionally faUed to coniply with the statufory provisions ofSectiou 65 (3) ofMPIRA. The petitioner has also not fiufher obtained any interun reUefor stay of the impugned order by fhis coi II1 9. Lookiag iato the conduct of fhe petitfoner firstly by not appearing before the court on several occasions and secondly by not com.plyiag with the provisions ofSection 65 (3) ofMPIRA, it is desirable fhat tfais petition be disinissed. Even'ofherwisc tfaere is no inaterial irregularity and fhere is sufficient and cogent evidence to support reasorung and decisionofthe unpugned order. Thiscourt under Articles 226/227 of fhe Constitutioa of India has limited scopc of interference with the orders passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Tribunal. 10. In view ofthe foregoing, £hepetitioner is directed to comply with fhe order dated 25.07.2000, passed by the Industdal Court in Appeal No. 63/MPIR Act/96 & Appeal No. 64/MPIR Act/96 within a period of fhree inonfhs from. today ie. 12.01.2006. 11. In the facts offhe case, this petitionstands dfemissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agi ~ Judge itri