i Singta BencB 1N THE 111GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU R CHHATTISGARH CONTEIVIPTCASEC^o. 2.13 / 2011 Et.:l 1 IJQNif? KtsrDNDENtNO.3 ^€> ^f-^ ^' ^^,^6^- R.M. Yadav S/o Shri Hari Prasad Yadav, aged about 46 yeai» occupiation - EX Junior Drlll Operatior, R/o Satnam (;liowk l^liarawbasti, Near Eihanusata tlouhx Camp-2 Bhilai Durg (CG) VERSUS Shri Arvind Jain S/o Shri B.R Jaiii aged about 60 years occupiation Managing Director, Bhilai Englneerino Corporation Ltd. Industrial Aren, Hathkhoj, Bhilai Durg (CG) (-ON l|£lVlElCMKJ!NI)Eli8EmfiiyiOFj^^^^ COUKT ACT AND UNDER ARTICLE 216 OF THE CONSTITUTION QIilNBlA. 11tl,ttllQj:iDElN3: I'l IDIONER NIWIT lgr)*iicn '3^r '^i<<i<vi^, ^)Til'M4t(o, fsicni-y^ —......&^t:....(^.d.c3..v^-§^J ^^.......^...^...............^^.......^^^ ^t1^?T J:f^V (l?^q^) ^r^r^^ich WT 3n^¥ifsh^iw t--: •^' D^epii VRTWC ^rf^cT 3TI^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra MohanlShrivastava. j. 14-07-2011 Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsei for Learned counsel for the made on 16/08/07 in W.P.(L) No.41 and arrears wouid be paid, at the petition itseif was dismissed as Leamedcounsel for the before this Court that they would r^ ought to have been paid ancj contemptuous. On 16/08/07, a statement w^ wouid be reinstated and arrears petition itseif was withyrawn. Ther^ liabiiity of reinstatement under in1< thereafter. Therefore, i am not inclined N finaiiy disposed off. However, the p^ appropriate remedy avaiiable und^i under the provisions of industriai Dis|} the <sni<<(<?i<i1i 'HTR^f ^f 'fe^ <Rn^i< '^stRpT^n^T petitioner. petiti<>ner submits that even though statement was 179/07 that the petitioner would be reinstated r^questof the petitioner in that case, the writ withdt-awn on 24/09/07. petitjoner submits that the respondent had stated ^instate the petitioner, pay arrears, the same non-reinstatement and non-payment is ^s made before this Court that the petitioner woijid be paid butthereafter on 24/09/07, thewrit was no order of the Court to show that the inlerim order dated 16/08/07 would continue issue any notice. The petition is accordingly ^titioner wouid be at iiberty to take recourse to und^r the law towards re-enforcement of award 'islputes Act, 1947. ^^r^ ^attin^" k jud?,e ^Wcfl^^^^uil^, <l^i<<llc|—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. 41