HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pstition No.306 o 1995 f Petitionar Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai (Unit of Steel Authon'ty of India Ltd). Versus Respondsnts 1. Indusirial Court, M‘P. Raipur Bench, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Presiding OElcer, Labour Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.). 3. Kedarnath Dwivedi, S/o Shn' Ramanuj Dubey, R/o Qr. No. F- Block No. 77, Camp-I, Bhiiai, District— Durg (C.G.) (Since dead, through Legal Representatives No. 1 to 4) 1. Smt. Sumitra Bai, W/o Late Shn' Kedmnam Dwivedi, aged about 50 yeaxs. 2. Smt. Alpana Pandey, W10 Shn‘ Arun' Pandey, aged [about 28 years, R/o taxmanpur, Rewa, District— Rewa. 3. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Late Shri Kedaxnath Dwivedi, aged about 25 years. 4. Viuay Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Late Shri Kedamath Dwivedi, aged about 19 years. (All residents of Post — Govindgarh, village— Vasadevintola) Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K.”Ag1ihotri. Shn' Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (12‘1‘ January, 2006) This ord€r of the Court was passsd by S. K. Agihotri, J. ThB prasent petition f11€d under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the legality and validity of the order datod. 17.10.1994, passed by Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur in Appeal No. 179/MPIR/94, whereby learned Industrial Court has dismissed both the appeals tiled by the management as well as employee. The Management] petitioner had filed the appeal questioning the order of Labour Court, whereby it was directed to reinstate the oxiginal respondent No. 3 Kedainath Dwivedi on the post. The employee had also filed an appeal impugning the order of refusal to grant back wages to the employee-Kedarnath Dwivedi. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that against this very order the petitioner had nled a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpnr, being Writ Petition No. 944/95, The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur by order dated 5.04.1995, was pleased to dismiss the petition summarily. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and orders passed by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court. The power of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constituh'on of India is limited to the extent that this Court should restrain itself in exercise of its power unless there is perversity in finding of ' $ facts, non application of proper law or fmding Iecorded is without evidence. I have found that there is no penmrsity in the impugned judgment and order. The fmding of facts Ieconled by the Industrial Court is supporied by evidence after applying proper law. Hence it does not Wanant for any interference with the impugned order dated 17. 10. 1994. For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. No onier as to costs, \C» sul- Satish K. Agnihotri ”1 ' Judge