Principal Nirmala Sr.Sec.Eng.M.School v. Babloo Das

Shims Bengh ' H'

éa'xa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

Writ Petition(s) No. Q§Q 0f 2006 Petitioner:

Principal Nirmala Senior Secondary English/ y Medium School, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg, f/ Chhattisgarh "

VERSUS

Babioodas, S/o Sudhirdas,, Resident of Opposite, v z Resgondent:

CSEB Office, Main Road, Daili-Rajhara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OR THE LIKE.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WP'c- No. 4501 of 2006 Principal, Nirmala Senior Secondary English Medium School ---- Petitioner

Versus

Babloo Das ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent None appears even in the second round S_B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 1 6/02/201 7 1.

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of Award dated 3.6.2006 on various grounds.

2.

This Court had stayed the Award subject to compliance of Section 17-8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide order dated 29.8.2006. There is no material on record to show that the order of payment of last drawn wages was not complied with.

3.

lt appears that during pendency of the petition, the respondent-employee was terminated on 12.3.2007 which was sought to be challenged by the respondent by tiling an interim application (l.A.No.1). The application was however rejected on 19.6.2009.

it is not known whether the respondent-employee challenged his termination by any subsequent petition or not. i 4.

Be that as it may, once the respondent s out of employment by a subsequent termination order which has not shown to have been challenged in any independent proceedings before the Court and the respondent having continued

@ -2.

till 12.3.2007 receiving last wages drawn under an interim order passed by this Court, the issue raised before the Court is now rendered academic, because even if the respondent is entitled to any relief against reinstatement, he having already been terminated, no fruitful purpose would be served.

Therefore, this petition is disposed off as having rendered infructuous. .

It is made clear that whatever has been paid to the respondent- employee by way of last wages drawn in compliance of the provision contained in Section 17-B of the Act under interim order dated 29.8.2006 would not be recovered from him. Moreover, if respondent has already challenged the termination order dated 12.3.2007, the petitioner-Institution is given liberty to revive this petition. \ i Sd/ Mohan Shrivastava ManindraJudge PfaVeen