f cv' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 2-L^C1 /2QQ2 PETITIONER HEERALAL, S/0. LATE SHRI SHIVPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 30 (^, YEARS, OCCUPATION- ^^..^'^•^AGRlCVLTURlSr, BY CASTE-RAJWAR, ^'SAy" R/°- VILLAGE-BATARA, P.0. BATRA, ^yvy\.^ P.S. JAINAGAR,; TAH. SURAJPUR, t^'"",^"^C^ DISTT. SURGUJA (C.G.) -sy y VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) RAJMENB.AI, WIDOW OF LATE SHRI HEERASAI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION-HOME SISTER, CASTE-RAJWAR, R/0. VILLAGE- BATARA, P.S. JAINAGAR, TAH. SURAJPUR,DISTT. SURGUJA (C.G.) /-/" WRIT PETITION UNDER 'ARTICLES _ 2267227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE__QF WRIT. OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, IN THE JMATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROl-iIBmQN ETC. ^ I-HC—78 ^Sf "4I^I<'1<4, ®fll+i'|ta,f"l?1iy^< , .....L]£.........^'a.-a..... 3Ti^T TT^; ('ipf^^q) '?TS?T 3TI^T^^|qn 01/02/2005: - Shri Sushil Dubey learned courjsel Torthe petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner Heeralal isthe non-s the Labour Court, Ambikapur vide petitioner is aggrieved by an order Labour Court by which his mainteinabilityofthecase has been The facts of the case are that) ^raferah'wrciS tf feTst •(fSnCT: ^ aiRrti sn^i -a{?plicant in a pending matter before ca^e No.56/2002 W.C. Aet(F). The Idated 12/09/2002 passed by the prelimjnary objection in reiation to the di^missed by the Labour Court. the applicant (respondent herein) Smt. Rajmen Bai fited anapplication i|inder Section 10 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for realizing|her claim against the petitioner on account of death of herson namely fMiranjan. The allegations are that Niranjan died during the course 4)f. employment of the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to rec^ive certain compensation from the petitioner. The petitioner appeared b^fore the Labour Court and filed his objection regarding maintainability of the case. A copy of the objection is also filed as Annexure-P/4 inthis petiflon. The main objectiontaken by the petitioner is that in fact the depeased was not working with the petitioner and the death of the dece^ised was suicidal in nature, as he hadconsumed certainpoison on hiso|wn account. Leamed counsel appearing fc^ the petitioner submits that since the provisions of the Workmen's Con^ensation Act are not attracted and furthersince ths petitioner was notth^ employer ofthe deceased and the, :I-HC—-; ^si ^TRTcW, •aTil-H^, fs<dl'9^< ^.........L?J;..?:......S[^.o.,, 'Wfl mna.Ti^r^Tiffi ^^ relationship of employer and emplo^ee therefore, the petition is nof maintaiifiable filed by the respondent before th{ contentions ofthe petitioner. *^[<?f'fl'1 11N?i?'^fSTSt'<Fs|«;l( does not exist between them, i^ Reply to this objection was fe Labour Court who denied the Learned Labour Court after hearin9 the parties dismissed the preliminary objectiori holding that fie claim cannot be dismissed at preliminary stage on this preliminafy objection because the disputed questions offacts are to bedecided 01(1 merits in this case. 1 have also examined the recofds filed by the petitioner. Whether i the death of deceased Nlranjan was p suicidal death or not, whether the deceased was in the employment of (he petitioner or not and whether the mother of the deeeased, the responijlent herein, was entitied to receive compensation on account of suchj questions to be decided in this matt^r which are certainly the matter of evidence and cannot be decided at! death or not are the important the preliminary stage. The order impugned passed by the Labour C^iurt on 12/09/2002 (Annexure-P/1) does not suffer with any illegality and ^he preliminary obj'ection has rightly been dismissed. The peh'tion has i?o merit and therefore the same is dismissed. The petitioner is direct^d to partteipate before the Labour Court and file his reply in accordanc^ with law which shall be considered on its own merits at an appropriate stajge. SunilKumarSinha Judge .Ko^