. ?flL 1 . ..? Wft w.u <E5r ., . \.. ..,L; .. :r:.<.;f ..:. . ff? . . HISHCOURTOFCHHATTISSARMATBILASPUR Single Bench :HON'BLE SHKI JASMSH BHALLA, Ag. CJ. Writ Petition(U 6290 of 2007 '^ Petitioners Resoonckants befoni the Lgbour Courl- Resoondents Applicants before 1. M/s Ashwani ftajkumar Kurftar AAming and Trading Co.Though Proprietor Jagdalpur 2. Shivshakl'i Rocdwoys Jagdalpur, Bastor (C©)Through Prpprietor 3. Shivshakti Motors Jagdalpur, Bastou' (G&) Through Proprietor 1. State of Chharttisgarh Through : Secretary Labour Deptt DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C©) 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Gourt Jqgdaipur 3. President, Sambhagiya Uotor Kamagar Sangh, Jagdalpur, Bdstar. Writ Petition under Article 227 pf.the Constitutipn_of IndiS Pre^ht: ShriNK Vyas, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for responcient ISio.3. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur/SovernmentAdvocate for-theStorte. ORAL.ORDER (Passedon 24th October. 2007) - The applicatipn datec|16.1p,2007 is allowed and the afficlfliVi-t- isfakenon^record.. • ' • ;;.;:. . .. . ' •,•.-';.:1:^".^., Thispetition-is dtrectetfogainstths^^^^ & 04.10.2007, vAerebyaRpliccrt'ionofthKge^^ resRohyent No.3 »Tr^e IJriion for fyw claim.wcsl\rejecte3<:^^ei''efffter,;pe!ti;tjoi^ aa -z--. lv^ infer alia praying that now "tiie writtws statement is being filed, thereforethe order dated 05.07.2007 be recailedand 1+le writteh statement be-taken ori record which was also rejected by order dated 04.10.2007. Against these two orders petitioners approached this Court. An Industricl dispute was rdised before the State Government by respondent No.3. After examining the matf'er, by a referencedated 19.08.1996 the State ^ovemment referred •the fo!iowing questions for adjudication before the Labour Court: "wr "^ST Ri'iflui* STO ^1'^ 32 ^m Pi'a'hiT (waT-i ^t) ^ ^«TT ^a|<t<fl<t>'<ut SlfsT ^ gaff qw ^qr P'l^<tclT ^ WW q»T ?im ^fWr w^ ^ 'evw^S'! vK '•^ 'sf ften pi^oii ^w ^reprar «& T(ra t (Wrr 5^1 wirsr 4 Pio1uii»> %t ^iir f^?r feqi 'iip'n ^il14" The reference was registered as Case No.69/10 Act/Ref/97. The claims were filed before the Labour Court on 28.0t.l998. Theroafter' petitioners had ample time to file written statement, but neither written statement was filed nor any application referred hereinabove was moyed fora direction to the peSpondents to fumish iist A & B to the petitioners. However, on 22 June 1999 petitioner's moved an applicationseekingpermission to engage a counsei oaid the same was rejected on the same day. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court and the aime was admitted omd inter-im relief Was grflihted. Ultimately on 18t Apr-il 2007, the writ petitionwas allowed and the petitioners were given facility to engoige a counsel to appear before the tabour Court, with a direction to the Labour Court to cbnsider ond dispose of the matter within a period of six months Thereafter,'the case was fixed for 25 MoY,20Q7, bn the said date neither the Presiding Officei' was available; nor any written statgiment was fited. Agoin , 6n 2" Juna, 2007 situation remains same; tibwsyer, bn 20 June, 2007 oh thfe requesf'of learned counsel for the petitioner one week time^^^ 3- file written statement. Gn 27f June,2007 the written statement was not filed, again on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners time to fi le written statement was granted ond the case was fixedfor 05.07.2007. On 05.07.2007, the petitioners moved an apptication ppaying that -rtie responclents be directed to furnish list A & B of the claim. It is surprising that the said prayer was not made earlier for the Idst several years before the Court. Even if the period of interim order between 1999 and 2007 is ignored, petitioners had ampte time for moving appiication between 28th Jcnuary 1998 and 22nd June 1999 and thereafter, after 18.04.2007, when the writ petition referred to hereinabove was decided. However, during the discussions, it hds been agreed upon between learned counsel for the parties that interest of justice will suffice in case Rs.2,000/-ds cost to every workman is paid, the wriften statement earlier filed be allowed to read with a fur'ther condition that the petitioners will not seek any adjournment in the matter, except one. In the above circumstances and in light of the above agreement between the parties, let Rs.64,OW/- be deposited towards cost by the petitioners as there are 32 workmen before 26 October, 2007 when the date is fixed before the labour Court. Thereafter labour Court shdl decide the maft-er in the spirit and in light of the order dafed 18th April 2007. Petitioners shail pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand only) by Demand Drdft or Bonkers Cheque in the name of each dnd every workman or their legal heirs. It isclarified that in case some workman has left for heaveniy abode, the amount of Rs.2,000/- be paid to his/her tegai hejrs in cash, if the tegal heirs are-not avaitabte, then, •thesaid amount be deposited in the labour Courtso as lateron the said amount can be paid to the legal heirs. It is specifically.provided that if the petitioners fail to fulfill theabove conditions, then this "^ '^^a^^^^S^S^Sili^S^ aBSintB -^- brder would not be dvailabie to them. Petitionersare allowed to take only one adjournment in exceptional <xnd extraordinary circumstonces. In light of the above, the wfitten statement filed by the petitioners which is already on record in the labour Court be read in their defence. With this observation, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice ^ padma