.?. 2°y / BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE BILASPUR. fC.G.) W.P.fU N0 .:i83^~IQ6 1. 2. 1 Smt. Savitri Devi Agrawal, Aged about 74 years, Wlfe of Shri Mathuram Agrawal Proprietor/Occupier Slnghal Humes Pipes & RCC Products, Manendra Garh Road, Ambikapur, ( Sarguja ) 2. Dipak Agrawal, Aged about 3g years, S/o Shri Ramchandra Agrwal Factory Manager Singhal Humes Pipes & RCC Products, Manendra Garh Road, Ambikapur. ( Sarguja ) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, / Through the Secretary, Labour Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. Factory Inspector, O/o: Deputy Director, Industrial Health & Safety, Bilaspur. PETITIONERS. RR-flo--ZS.£S/s^ Presentedfcyshri'.~5"7"':^":^':-" dated^^S^^^ RESPQNDENTS. 3. State Industrial Court of C.G. at Raipur Mahanadi Khand, Near D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. '"^ ' ; :: • - \ 'S'i, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 CONSTITUTION ^} ®li OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITOF CERTITIORAY OR /-'30^^ .T^ i MANDAMOUS OR LIKE NATURE. HJGH CQURLOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRITPETJTi9NtLlNp,SB320F2M6 PETITIONERS Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Savitri Devi Agrawal and another. State of Chhattisgarh and othere. Prssent: _ Shri N.K. Vyas, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State. (ORALQRDER) (Passed on 30 October, 2006) The petitioners have impugned the order dated 16-10-2006 passed by the Industrial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 03 /CGIRAct/2006, whereby the apptication of the petitioners dated 16-10-2CX)6 for constituting a Bench consisting of two or more members for disposal of the Criminal Appea! pending before the Court was dismissed. The Industrial Court without assigning any reason has dismissed the application on the ground that the Industrial Court Formation of Benches Rutes are no longer in existence and Industrial Court Rules, 2000 are in force. (2) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners refere to the Exercise of powers and functions of Industrial Court Rules, 2000 (for short "the Rules, 2000) and submits that Rule 5 of the Rules, 2000 clearly provides for constitutjon of a Bench consisting of tro or more members. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2000 reads thus: "5. The following matters shatl ordinarily be ^ heard at motion or final stage and disposed of by Bench consisting oftwo or more members:- ^sM-SSS^^sSsM^l. -c--..f.—ie'aa'&S^y1'''"" 9 2.- \.. .(•'' < y' ^tl (i) appeal by the person convicted in terms ofSection 65 (b) ofthe Act, where sentence awarded is 3 months' imprisonment or more with or without fine; (ii) appeal by the Stete Government in terms of Secfion 65 (c) of the Act against acquittal entertainable with the leave of the Court in terms of Section 64 (2) of the Act read with Section 378 (3) of ttie Code of Criminal Procedure; (fti) appeal by the State Govemment for enhancement of the sentence in terms of Section 65 (d) of the Act to a term of 3 months' imprisonment or more with or without fine as prayed in Memorandum of Appeal. (h/) reference on point of law or interpretaCon oftheAct or rules under Section 70 ofthe Act." (3) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State concedes to the position and submite that Rules, 2000 clearly provides for constitution of a Bench consisft'ng oftwo or more membere. (4) For the reasons stated above, the order of the fndustrial Court dismissing ttie application ofthe petitioners dated 16-10-2006 is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and order passed by the Industrial Court dated 16-10-2006 is set aside and fte application of the petitioners is restored to the file of the Court for decisiQn, in accordance with law. (5) Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order, today itsetf. Sd/- SatishK.Agnaiot" Judge