“HWLFaumtuuzIwW' ‘ ; f RESEON DENTS L f , N -' I QN.’ MISC. PETITION NO & Z Z Q l1991. (g; £ Smt. Sakubal wd/o Natthu Tembekar I through General Secretary, Dangargarh &d1 MaJdoor Sangh,l<alkapara, mngargarh, m'stric‘b- Ra'jnan dgaon( NLP .) V vgasus- ‘ v/ 1. Appellate Authorrty Under Bid; 8. agar § Vbrkers(Cond1t10ns of EnploymentMc‘t 1966 Asslstant Labour mmmlssloner, Raipur, Labour D1v1slon, Balpur(M.P ) 2 Nbnager, Gal-Qmap ad; Karkhana, 5 M/s. &)hotalal Keshavram, Dongargarh, mstnct- Rajnandgaon(M.P ) ww’f IN m5 HIGH mum OF mam§$5m AT mapwue ‘7 PETITION UNDER QnaES 226i 227 wNST’IIUTION OF INDIA. LII .I HIGH COURF OF CHHA’I’TISGARH AT BILASPUR WV P. No. 37 14 of 1991 Petitioner Smt. Sakubai Versus Respondents ‘ Appellate Authority Under Bidi &. Cigar WorkcrS (Conditions of Employmcnti Act, 1966 85 another £9 SB: Hon’blc Mr. Justicc Satish K. mihotl'i. J Shn' H. B. Agaxwal, Senior Advocate with Miss Sangeeta Misha, \;‘ Ad'vocatg for the petitioner. n, None for the mspondents. O R D E R ( 30th November, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satmh, K. Ayihotti, J. The petitioner was employed by the respondent No.2 as Bidi binder. The terms and cond'm'ons of her employment were governed under the pmvisions of Bidi 85 Cigar Workers (Condiiions of Employment) Act, 1966 ( for short ‘the Act, 1966’). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent No.2 vid‘e order dated 1 1. 11. 1980. Being aggrieved a dispute was raised before the appellate authority-cum Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Act, 1966. The appellate authority allowed the apylicsn'on of the petitioner with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. lt appears, on perusal of the impugned order that the issue of grant of back wages was neither raised nor discussed in the impugned order. It appears that the petitioner has not laid down any pleadings of facts astn establish that the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere. Thus, no iindiug g; was mcouiad with regald to the gmnt of b payment of back wages was also passed. unmm ack wages and no omer fbr (ié In View of the masons made hereinabove, the petition is allowed to the above extent. The respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to make payment of 50% back wages to the petitioner. No Older as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri 7 Jurdge‘ .