BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ff \eéO W IN THE MATTER OF XW%% DEWARAM SAHU S/o MAKHAN RAM R/o Vlllage Dakla i’ost Dakla Teh. Charama, Dlstt. Kanker (C.G.) SANTU RAM S/O LATE SHRI CHURAU RAM. R/o Village Dakla, Post. Dakla, Teh. Charama, Distt. Kanker (C.G.)‘ PETITIONER VERSUS 1. STATE OF C.G. Through its Secretary, Govt of Chhattisgarh, *" D.K.S. Bhawah, Raipur (C.G.) ,2. STATE OF M.P. Through its Secretary, Govt. of M.P. Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) / 3. Secretary Cum Labour Commissioner, Govt. of M‘P., Dept. of Labour Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) LABOUR COMMISSIONER, Moti Bunglow, Indore. ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, Appellate Authority, Bidi and Cigar Workers Act, Govt. of M.P., Indore. APPELLATE AUTHORITY CUM ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, Bidi and Cigar Workers Act Raipur M/S MANTILAL DAYALIJI BHAI MIRANI 0‘ Gola B1d1 Karkhana at Marava Charma IX ‘ / Distt. Kanker (C G ) f‘ RESPONDENTS ff WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 Of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OE MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AS MY LORD DEEMED FIT §/@ IHIGH-‘CQUR‘TOF W CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1660 of2003 IDET‘ITIONER : Dgwaram Sam; & mother. if > v ' vmsus RESPONDENTS State ofCG atomers W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF E ‘ INDIA ‘ SB- Hon’blc shu swan K. Amtgui. ‘ ! Preserit: i $hn Pradeep Saxem, Advocate for the petmoner E § smMPSBhmDy GAformesmte/respondemNows ¥ 31m Ablshek suma, Advocate for the respondent No 7 , ORAL 01mm V (Passed on 15“_day of Mmh, 2010) 1. The Retitioners seek a direction to the reépondent No. 5 to transfer the Eappegls being No. Bidi Appeal 171/921/7974-76 and 5/93/7970-72, pending betore the respondent No 5 Asslstam Labour Conmssaoner, f 'Agpenam Analonty, Bun & agar Wmkm Act, Indore, Madhya * Pradesh to the Appellate Authority cum Assistant Labour 9 (,ommxssmner, B1d1 & C1gar Workers Aet, Raipur, Chhmtisgnrh 2. ' Shn Saxena, learned counsel appeanng for the petmoner subnuts that pursuant to the prowsmns ofMadhya Pradesh Reorgamzmon Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act 2000’ , an the proceeding pendmg wnhm the State 1 § ofMadhya Pradesh m relamn to all the temtones ofChhamsgarh State é I .stands transferred to the cmespondm’g pomt, tribunal, authority or ofiieerofthe State ofChhattisgom e3. I ShnSaxenafurthersubmrtsthatthedisputearosemmKanka’ winch fans mom the terntonal Jwmcuon ofthe State ofChhamsgam Thus, f the respondent No. 5 ought to have trans‘‘ ed the pmeeedm’gs to the mama re a x 1 L ; g; appropriate tribunal in the State of Chhattisgarh. The respondent No.5 issw a party before this Court. Notice has been served upon respondent No. 5. Despite service, the, r respondent No. 5 has chosen neither to transfer the proceeding as i required under the provisions of section 83 of the Act, .2000 nar has placed its (Ease before this Court. Dun'ng the course of argument, it is pointed out that there may be a dispute with regard to the jurisdiction aeto whether the subject matter fails within the territorial jurisdiction ofthe State ofMadhya Pradesh or the State of Chhattisgarh, exclusively. In View of that, the petitioners are directed to make appropriate application before the respondent No. 5. On application being made, by the petitioners, the respondent No. 5 is directed to consider the application in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders at the earliest, preferably within a period offour weeks h‘om the date of the receipt ofthe application. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 1 V Sd/_ . - Satish K. Agnihotri Judge , l,