^.^^ ^^fgi^5-^ StNGLEBENCH^ C ^-7^^ li\ll PETITIONES Ranjna Yadav S/o Shri ageabout 39'vears. R/o U.-57, Kajendra Frasad Nagai roai^, 'e^ n A& •(S.fi.&ANM 9 g ^/- :ate of C. G Through- Secretery D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.Ci) Superinteadent Eiigineer (A..dmn; Water Resources Deptt. srba, Distt.- Korba (C.G ^ Executive Enaineer Hasdeo Baraj Jal Prabandh Divisior B.-ampur, Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G) VRiT FE' ,E 2.26 &. 22.7 '^? CONSTITIITION OF n HIGH C.OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLTR PETITIONER WRET PETITION CL) No. 825 of2010 Ranjna Yadav. WRSUS RESPONDENTS State ofC.G. & Others. Writ Petition Under Anicle 226 & 227 QfThe Constitution Offadia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Sfaridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 25°'-day of Febmaty, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, relying on the decision ofthis Court mNaresh Giri Goswami v. State ofC.G. & Others , has dismissed the application ofthe petitioner filed undei- the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947 ), on the ground that there was a delay of 12 years, thus, the application was not maintainable and merit has also been considered in a cr^'ptic and casual maimer, without going into the details. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/x'espondents submits in support of the impugned order that the petitioner, being a daily wager, is tiot entitled to any relief m the liglit ofjudgtnent passed by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kamataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others^. 12008(3)CGLJ126 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1 .Kaasa, 3. ^' Be that as it may, the decision ofthis Court in Naresh Giri Goswami (supra) was passed in a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, dii-eetly without taking recourse to the provisions ofthe Act, 1947. The prime consideration offhe court beiow was on tiie ground of delay. In Ram Kumar Swyvanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , while considering the question of delay, it was observed that prejudice has also to be considered particularly in the facts ofthe case, when the provisions of the Liiiiitation Act are not applicable to the provisions ofthe Act, 1947. In view of the foregoine, tiie unpugned award dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Korba, is quashed. The matter-is remanded back to the Labour Court, Korba to consider aiid decide the ease firstly on delay in the light of several decisions passed by the Suprenie Court and by this Court includuig Ram Kumar Stiryavanshi (supi'a) and secondly, on merits, as expeditiously as 5. The writ petition is allowed to the extent itidicated above. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge