C§1@ mm §£§ I IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH g AT BILASPUR H w.P.(C)No. we; Of 2010 m (/ PETITIONER Uttam Chand Jain, aged Non-applicant about 54 Hyears, son of Late I No.2 D.C. Jain Contractor, g, R/ o.Vi11age Gunderdehi, ‘ District Durg (C.G.) L h Versus :1) /Kachru Ram Netam, S/o. Late ' Dukhawav) aged about 48 years, :2) Smt. Ramvati, W/o. Kachru Ram Aged about 45 years, Both R/o. Village Surhi, Gram Panchayat Surhi,’ Thana Narharpur, District Kanker (C G) APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS :3) yContractor N.C. Naher, J.K.Vi11a‘, Malviya Nagar Durg g RESPONDENT No. 1 L :4) Executive Engineer, Office of ii H ‘ \ Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak X3 ’ W i Yojna, Kanker, District Kanker a (C.G.) RESPONDENT No3Aé ‘r ’15) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Kanker District » Kanker (C RESPONDENT G ) No s @é Va) 43/3 :6) Ramswaroo , son of Bharosa i Ram Mand wi aged about 45 years R/o Chhindbharrl P S ‘t . i a Arjuna, Drstr1ct Dhamtarl (C.G.) i} . / XI-HC—78 V\° W % 3am, m, v3 (/Wm” Way (h a$mnw$($%¥ay) mmmm 9Q) f m"\ Io m 20 ammw am mm WW wlfm %;aimaué31 SB : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihc tri, J. 12-7—2010 W.P. (C) (PR) No{5.2003 & 2004 of 2010 Heard Shri HB. Agrawai, Sr. for the petiticner and Shri N.N. Roy, The petitioner has been fdund ae an employer by order dated (C) (PR) No.2003 of 2010 and Annexure 13f 2010} passed by the Commissroner, Advocate with Ms ltu Rani Das, Advocate Fanei Lawyer for the State. 16—2—2009 {Annexure — P/8 to WP. -~ P/Q to \NP. (C) (PR) No.2004 Workmen’s Compensation r the petitioner submits that the statutory appeal as provided under Section $0 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act, 1923”) is ht as according to him he is not the em ‘ Onbe the authority below ha untii and uniess this finding is set e appellate authority, provisions of applicabte. ln view of availability maintainable. There is no grievan efficacious nor expeditious. On the request of learned dounsel appearing for the petitioner, two the defaults, as pointed out by the office, stand dismissed Without reference to the t avaiiable or applicable to the petitioner, 3loyer. ts heid that the petitioner is an employer side by the higher authority may be the .Section 30 of the Act, 1923 would be 10f statutory appeal, no writ petition is 5e that the statutory remedy is neither i weeks time is granted to make good failing which the writ petitions shaii Court. Sdl- ’ “u Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Learned counsel appearing ft l i wy ~L ‘\ Div ’w R\ O \mk/xv \ \. , x\_ ¢w \ i §$Q¢kuv§ V$ $.93 \wnn"\n¢. ,Aw‘ desvmE rwcwx m? m: \xa 33$ ;§% 9* veodFoTQ wwYw ,vwxpgwmg %§$¥§w§x x0 u§3§§§8§§ xv? \ WHIVWSA Wz<§ 06 333% MY oQioaN £K§E , §%& Egg Egg EEWEE Egg Awgvgg, 0V\ @gyjkgAWb 8N WW. O EE