,wfapgy/, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(C)No. 4M6; 0f 2010 PETITIONER Non—apglicant No.2 RESPONDENTS :1) :4) :6) 3mm gm?! Uttam Chand Jain, 'aged about 54 years, son of Late D.C. Jain Contractor, R/o. Village Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Versus Agnuram Markam, S/o. late Persadi Ram, aged, about 48 years ' Smt. > angotri, W/o. Agnuram, aged about 45 years Dineshwar _Markam, Son of Agnuram, aged about 14 years, through Guardian Amicus Curie Father Agnuram Markam, A11 R/o. Village Surhi , Gram Panchayat Surhi, Thana Narharpur, District Kanker (C.G.) . APPELLANTSI CLAIMANT Contractor N.C. Naher, J.K.Villa, Malviya Nagar Durg RESPONDENT NO.1 Executive Engineer, ‘Office of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, ‘Kanker, District Kanker (ca) RESPONDENT No.3 State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) " RESFONDENT No.4 G Va/ :7) Ramswaroo , son of Bharosa ‘ Ram years, Mand R/o. wi Chhindbharri, aged about Rs. 45 g‘ Arjuna, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 § OF TI-IE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i Saw, "5W, WWW m WW (Iahaia) smmfaaiw WWW SB : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 12-7—2010 Heard Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. for the petitioner and Shri N.N‘ Roy, The petitioner has been friund as an empioyer by order dated (C) (PR) No.2003 of 2010 and Annexure of 201G} passed by the Commissioner, 16~2~2009 '{Annexure ~ P/8 to WP. —- P/Q if) VVP. (C) (PR) No.2004 Workmen’S Compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submiie thai the statutory appeal as provided under Section WP. ,(QUPR) N052003 & 2004 of 2010 EO of the Workmen’s Compensation Act; 1923 (for shod ”the Act, 19233 is mi aveiiable or appiicabie r0. the petitionerx as according to himhe is not the e ioyer, ‘ held that the petitioner is an employer y Once the authority below ha until and unless this finding is set aside by the higher authority may 0e the Section 3O of the Act, 1923 would he of statutory appeai, no writ petition is maintainabie. There is no grievance that the statutory remedy is neither appeiiate authority, provisions of appiicabiei in view of availability efficacious nor expeditious. weeke time is granted to make gooc faiiing which the writ petitionS shall Court. On the request of learned riounsei appearing for the petitionet, two the detauite, as pointed out by to office, stand dismissed without reference-to the / i l 5d: l .Judge Satish K. Agnihotri i‘ W120 Advocate with Ms itu Rani Das, Advocate Panel Lawyer for the State. e LKQrw 0%0d. OQ ‘ \uiawv 55$ nwxas g§§i xa 3§QNP$Q SS; k%r i1§ \oysbwxnT %\ o\\MooN 407W &i4uw$3 W.NR Wg§£ gtgwwwgg AEV EEE . cowWm... .. m —_~m. E.mm _bw*ww*wug