@ (1% (6122/ IN THE HIGH COURT. OF "JEDI‘CA‘TURUE AT.“ BILASWR; XW CHHATTISGARH wan PETITIQN No. g $32 OF 2W3 ‘ *Chhattisgarh State ware Housing Corporation, 01d Krishi Upaj Mandi Chowk, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) "w Versus 1. Presiding Officer, Labour iEourt, Rajnandgaon, District w’Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2. Shri Sugamiai Ramteke, S/o Late Poonaram Ramteke, resident of Ward No. 4, Shanti Nagar, Near house of Narayan Yadav, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)¢/,_» PETITIONER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE J26/égylv’w6zgTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / ‘ a, ' ' " XI-HC-22 mm m? awawgaeg Shri Prashant Mishra, counsel far the petitioner. ' Heard. By thi$ with petition; the pditionér $6eks to challange. thE Qfdar passai in ca55€ No.8/LDAct/QOOQJReferénce (Jatérl 17/02,! 2003 by the Prssidmg Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon bV which the. Labour Ceurt has directad to rEinStata ma raspondEnt no.2 with 50% back wages Within a period of sixty davs from ths date of award. ’\ The main contention of $115 learngd counSel for the pa§itioncr is that thc Labour CO lrt haS passéd this awald ill which the pctitioncr] Corporation was not a parLy to thc litigation and without making the petitioner as a party, the awal‘cl has been passed. If it is So, then the propé r- reme$y for the petiiioner was to approach the Labour Court for setting aside the awan‘d passed 1'11 the absence of the petitioner and to seek remedy before the Labour Court by requeeting to reopen the case after a110v&11g the petitioner to appeal‘ before the Court. 1H! ' m XI-HC-22 With the aforesaicl obselx disposed of. Consequently, M rehaf and I.A.No.5763/2OOS i or urgmlt h€arj11g alga stand di3p0Sed of. ’au'on, this writ petition smcls .V].P.No.1747/QDOB for interim Sdb L.C.BHADOO Judge [113% éfm