Wit x, THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR IN PETITIONER: W1 NW3" wgw x%‘ zs i" CERTIORERI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS OR MANDAM'US WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227£F THE CONSTITTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. w.P.No. (“w (2004 ‘ S/O K.C. Late Satpathy Shri Sapan Satpathy é . Aged about 61 years R/O Parsabhata, Balco Tehsil 85. District- Korba {C.G.] VERSUS M/ S Pankaj Engineering Company ‘ Power House Road ,‘ g ,_ Korba, Tehsil 8t, District Korba[C.G 1 3 ‘ _,.’&Qlrhrough “Y 1.Harswarup Partner, Agrawal S/ O Maujiram ’ Agrawal 2.Anil Agrawal S/ O Harswarup Agrawal Address — M/ S Pankaj Engineering Company Power House Road Korba, Tehsil €52. District KorbajQG ] RESPONDENT:] § ‘HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3420 of 2004 PETITIONER : K.C. Satpathy VERSUS RESPONDENTS : M/s. Pankaj Engineering Company. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 28‘ day of April, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the order dated 20/12/2002 passed by the Controlling Authority was doubted on account of the fact that after his promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Labour), he has passed the order as Controlling Authority. Thus, the order passed by the Controlling Authority on this ground alone was reversed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 18/1 1/2003 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was not on merits, but on .the issue of power of the Controlling Authority. Thus, the matter may be remanded back to the Controlling Authority for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. 2. Shri Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent concurs with the submission made by Shri Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the matter may be remanded back for fresh decision to the Controlling Authority. On perusal of the papers and the orders passed by both the Authorities, it isjust and proper in the interest ofjustice to remand back the matter to the Controlling Authority to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and on its own merits, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 4. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihou'i ‘ Judge ti. Gowri was