v CP ^. //!// IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P.mNo.^^/2011 PETITIONER ,\^^..- RESPONDENTS / Arun Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Damru Prasad Pandey, age about 37 years, R/o Irrigation Colony Darri, Near Jaiswal Pan Center, Distt.-Korba (C.G) VERSUS State of C. G. Through- Secretery Water Resources Deptt. D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G) Superintendent Engineer (Admn) Water Resources Deptt. Rampur Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G) Executive Engineer Hasdeo-Baraj Jal Prabandh Division Rampur, Korba, Distt.-Korba(C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ''^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition fU No. 2814 of 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Arun Kumar Pandey State of C.G. and others Shri S.P. Kale counsel forthe petitioner. Shri A.V. Shridhar PL for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (30.11.2011) Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 28.1.2009/5.12.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Korba in Case No. 5/IDA/2007 Ref. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the application was made after a period of about twelve years. He submits that the Court below should have decided the case of the petitioner on merits ignoring the point oflimitation. 3. This issue was considered by thisXourt in the matter of Ramkumar Suryavanshi v. State of C.G. and others reported in 2006 (III) FLR 946 wherein relying upon the dictum ofthe Supreme Court in the case ofAjaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketting-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another and other judgments, it has been held that the order of dismissal only on the ground of delay was not justified. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the delay may be considered while granting the relief in adjudication process provided that the employer is able to establish real prejudice. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/State submits that even though there is no specific period prescribed for limitation, the application before the Labour Court was filed after a period of twelve years and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner did not take recourse to remedy available to him under the law diligently and slept over his right for several years and as such the Labour Court was fully justified in dismissing the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. 5. In almost an identical situation, this Court in the case of Ramkumar Suryavanshi (supra) has held that dismissal of the case only on the ground of delay is not justified; relying upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra), Gurmaail Singh v. Principal, Government College of Education and others reported in 2000 (84) FLR 920 SC and S.M. Nilajkar and others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka reported in 2003 (97) FLR 608 SC. 6. While passing the impugned award the Labour Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Naresh Giri Goswami v. State of C.G. and others reported in 2008 (3) CGLJ 126 whereas the said judgment was passed by this Court in a petition directly filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India without taking recourse to the provisions of the Act of 1947. Thus it can be said that the application of afore-stated legal pronouncement by Labour Court while passing the order under challenge in this petition is not correct: 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 28.1.2009/5.12.2009 passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for appropriate adjudication on the point of limitation in accordance with law and the observations made by this Court in various judgments as well as by the Supreme Court referred to in the case of Ramkumar Suryavanshi (supra). 8. No order as to cost. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge