Dismissed

Ibrahim v. the Commi.,Municipal Corp.,RAIPURandORS

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2010WP/427/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The petitioner sought full back wages, claiming parity with another employee. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to prove non-gainful employment and found the impugned order yielded just relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.

Ibrahim Vs the Commi.,Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

^s^s

¶2

|t-<
td
W.' lt
o'- tt
?!.
ffl
g! .f-1.|1<!!1
g|l^II
11-1
|f3
\f-l
^l:^
CB
e^ tj
ri--•'.,i
^- ^f
:-^a.'i-h
.i»
IN! 6
JBi-'- »
^t
<^
S
sa
S
^s •»: ?
:• l.;(»"1;
-."•f
•Q: N
l^
sa
(»
I---
..1s.-<-..^* •','r
• :W.:i'S3S
. fs.' V
<•
-{D
u*|^| |---|---|---|---|

^g^.

Wfi

(H6n;|Wr..iyi5ticeiPt'itinKerBiwaloer) Writ Petition BS No. <H7of a^

CS.

PETmONER

VERSUS

lyrahim

RESPQN N3'S The ©ommiissionerand an©th6r

¶12

SNrtA. ©j1s^ts^|iav,^%»3a^ Si^.?ltu|^ni||gi(^erie|||^t^|^ndje(^ ShriH.B.Agia^t^niorjpweSs^^ No.1

¶13

IWI^^EttE^(UB taBS3inBBBNffi^ftB2»SSli'NE•y^^

¶14

•;';.:^.&:;i:r-%]:^.'l:^:^i-;.i%iWffiaii^

¶15

l:::.:'::..'.^^ij'';'^'

¶16

;^. /,..:i€|giB'||^iti|ingtge^;pre!S|!rit^?\Mitj^:{)«tttipn:.te to tDi,;opE(eF:||datect;S 22.12.1199? ^I^UF& P^ll^esedK^ diteGtiriQtheretn^atementot^j^lBo^v^

¶17

Bnef tee^ of^he ease are^ati^t^ant fe th»^Fe^jM^^|rtiB| tiy the State ligveitiment, jthe ma|er8'»^acltuyit^tefl ^ (^urt. tn the stetemerrt offel^ averrecl byhi^WatiiriMallyj^lv^appotnt^^o^ 1^1) as ari^ Annexyre P^ h®serviG^&^l'^^ Howev^ yid^ry|r^ed|8^^|8^!ii^^ servi(^vWMoy^%|la(m9^^^^ notfceancrigritRt)ui(3onclyct^;ai^|!RquiFy. .! ! ^ (,"': '• 3. Conter^ton crf^he |:^ter^Pii9|1:hat fc the s^rviGe CtintraBy ^to tMe^pi'ovisitMT sof S^ction j 25R (|fith^j Ir^ stnal ^ispute ^;; ]Sfieg ec^ing|jfR%j|^er^ ^rnep :'.Lat>our^yrt|rtasjp^s^iBlei|N^iJi^:^2-lts-'l1^7'!' ^^fh& retren6t^eotl:|ot^^ip!etttWn|iij<^|ri|t|i :he: <^.:flot:|giveii||iny|pnc>l||j^ii:|3^^^teFnii^i^ •^m» fiis!!|s|||i w ».«(; llkewise the!itNi®ncSfflent?iccj^Ren|atijm^t^ O il'iiwl i;l

¶18

;• !

¶19

! f^

¶20

¶21

-2—

¶22

Holding his tennination illegal the leamed Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner along with 50 percent back-wages. The timited contention of the petittoner fs that one similarly placed person l^isif Anish (Annexure P-4) had been directed to be refnstated with futl wages and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief.

¶23

On the other hand supporting the impugned award ft has been argued by Smt. Mukherjee that the facts of each case is required to be considered by the Court and in the case of retrenchment no parity can be claimed.

¶24

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

Admittedly the petitioner has not filed the copy of the statement of the witnesses recorded before the Labour Court nor he has filed the statement of claim submitted by hfm before the Labour Court. The petitioner has also not filed any document in respwt of the case of KasifAnish with whom he is ctaimlng parity. The petitioner has utterty failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period of 10 years for which he remained out of ennployment and there Is no cogent admissibleevidence on record to this effect. As the petltioner has already been awarded 50% back wages while directing for hte reinstatement, he should feel satisfied that he has been granted just relief by the Court below. Thus, I find no illegality with the order impugned passed by the Labour Court.

¶26

The petition has no substance and the same fes accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

<%^

¶28

Sd/Pritinker Diyaker Judge

¶29

1:.. -—'

Ibrahim v. the Commi.,Municipal Corp.,RAIPURandORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim v. the Commi.,Municipal Corp.,RAIPURandORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Yadav Vs C.G. State Electricity Board and Ors.

S.D. Rai and Ors. Vs State of C.G.

Devenda Kumar Shukla Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

V.S.Yadav Vs State and Ors.

Savita Jaiswal Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Smt. Anita Dutta Rai and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.