i1?^'' /• NSI.E SENKN [ •SrS' IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fUNO. C?^% /200f PETITIONER Appellant </u)..-^ ^-..•-.^'0:.. ^€? .•^v'7 ^y. RESPONDENTS fRespondentsl <x^ $. / Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, ·^^ftl (Transport Section), Through its Managing Director, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Versus /:1. Narendra Kumar Pandey, Son of Shri Ram Kishore Pandey, aged about 49 years, r/'o- House No.92, Katra Mohalla, Bhind, Distt.-Bhind (M.P.) ^-2. lyi.P.Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, Head Office- Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.). /3, The Industrial Gourt of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, through its Registrar. ^4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OFINDIA M HIGH COQRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII.ASPUR WMTPETmONCL) N6.648 of2009 PETmONER APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Infrastmcture Development : Chhattisgarh Corporation. VERSUS : Narendra Kumar Paadey & 3 Others. Petition Under Artiele 226/227 OfThe Constitution Oflndia. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. As'nihotri. J. Present: Shri Ratan Pusty,Advocate forthe petitioner. StaiMaiioj Mishra,AdvpcatefortherespondentNo. I. None for other respoadents. ORALORDER (Passed on 06"' dayof January,2010) 1. Heard leamedcoimsel appearing for theparties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orderdated 7.4.2008 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 04/CGIR/A/II/08 wUereby the appeal of the petitioner agamst the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, in case No. 63/2004/MPIR Act/Civil, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not eomplied with the provisions ofsection 65(3) ofthe Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act,l96Q ) and secondly, the appeal was filed beyondthe statutory limitation period. 3.^ Leamed cQunsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is incumbent upon fhe respondent-employee to file an affidavit before claimmg benefit under section 65(3) ofthe Act, 1960. However, he subnuts that the payments as admissible aad payaUei uni||eri,^ il::.':^ifif; s :^E'- 44 Amit provisions of sub section 65(3) has akeady been made till July, and the petitioner undertakes to make regular payment under the provisions oflaw. 4. On perosal ofthe records, it is found that fhe memo of appeal was accompanied with aa application for condonation of delay. The leamed President, Chhattisgarh Industrial Court, it appears has not considered the said application ofthe petitioner for condonation of delay when the leamed Industrial Court has jurisdictionto condone the delay and admit the appeal for sufBcient reasons under second proviso to sub seetion (2) ofsection65 ofthe Act, 1960. 5. In view ofthe foregoing, the delay in filingthe appeal is condoned. The matter is remitted back to fhe Industrial Court for deciding the case afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders. 6. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. 7. TheRegistryisdu-ectedtosendbackfhepapers,requisitionedfromthe courts below. forthwith. — T Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge S y-"' :)r •'l,"'.