IN THE HIGH COURT GE JUDICATURE AT JABALFUR WRIT PETITION , NO.Q\"§’ ‘C ~ OF 1999 UNDER RRTICLE 227 OF THE CONS‘I‘ITU’I‘IGN OF INDIA ‘ PETITI ONER : $mt. Bittu Shama . Bid/o Late Shri Govind Sharma, Aged about 40 years. Resident of Azad Chowk' ‘Sohaga Mandir Road, Bramhan Para, Raipur / (MP) / - VERSUS - gESPONDENTs : M. State of. Madhya Pradesb Through it‘s Secretary, Publ ic Works Department, Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL (MP) yo S 2. The dqief Engineer, Publ i c. Works Department , National Highway, Satpura Bhawan, BHOPAL (MP) The Sub Divisional $fficer, National Highway Sub Division, Public Wiorks Department, ‘ Pension Bada, RAIPUR . (MP) Manoj Kumar Narang Kumari Laxmi 'Dhruve Mahesh Kumar Sa 94. $50 No. 4, 5 and 6 all Lower Division Clerks in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Deparment, Highway Sub Division, Pension Bada, RAIPUR (MP) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, RAIPUR gMP) Industrial Court, Bench Raipur (MP) WRJ‘.’ m—M PETITION UNDER OF kRTICIE INDI§ 227 OF THE CONSTITWION ._ 1- MN— PARTICULARS OE‘ THE PETITICNER: Same as given above in the Cause title § % hu . XLHC—ZZ Chhattis garb, Bilaspur 8/172001, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Prashant Mislr a, le‘ shri Ranveer Si ngh, Heard. the petitioner is that the Labowr ceurt has dismissed the case on the ground ef delay. It is ishra that in feet no delay had petition before the Labour reeourtt My attention has been draw to the petition filed Mr the ‘ state Administrative Tribu a1 at Jahalpur in which 1t >was stated amongst other things that the petitioner had filed g‘ the petition at Raipur for redressal cf grievance., therefore, was made that g drawher petition on this The grievance 6f contended by Mr. Prashant been committed 1n filing eh The said petition was disposed of by the learnedgstate Administrative Tribunal on 15/11/1996. In the saié order, the fact that the peti- tioner desiied to file theEpetition before the Labour court was not refiected. g contsibuted to the order or dismi sal passed by the Labour The grievame of’the petitioner is that her case deserves to be decided on merits and that the petition é ought not, to have been dismlesed on the grcund af delay. g ’court. A prayer, e petitioner be allowed to with— rcund . «1a $4.34 It aypéars that this faet has arnéd counse’ix for respondents . matte; is dgc-i‘dedk‘énl m rits. Aeaerdingly the impugnei. ordgzf passed py Stine 1 V erder data 12/4/1999 y sseérhyrthe Industrial» court are sb§ aside. The matte; fer deéizsio'n‘ on merits partiés . r rrsnr ‘remittéd to the Labour Court fter issuing natices tothe Sdl- Chief Justice 'vanawmcaaraaam urpougt en 23/12/1998 énd>a1éo $§§g mmrw WM§WW~ ‘ akawqaném ‘ og‘2 o. After hearing lear " d comis'eli for §¢£h the rsides V and on petusal of rele nt portions of the pleadings ‘includ1ng ‘reply filed ‘ the respcndents, I am of the ,view that it mid mge the endsjof' j§$t1ce if lthe