(3D VM Emma ach 'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (c.G) w.P.No. °>‘I?? ..... OF 2004 Clo. CHANDRIKA KIRANA ORES HSCL COLONY, MARODA PO : NEWAI DISTT; DURG (OG) V. S . -PETITIONER 1. THE INDUSTRIAL COURT; GOVT; OF CHHATTISGARH GHADI CHOWK RAIPUR 2. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED THROUGH : MANAGING DIRECTO BHILAI STEEL PLANT BHILAI THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BHILAI STEEL PLANT BHILA RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF V INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A'N APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT §g BEFORE THE HoN K ASHOK UMAR 3/0. GANPAT! ST R I WW, g‘ a’ E3 €J W\P.Ne.3977m4 c @WW ‘ @ W / W 200 WWW WW WW $Wa¥ré¥1 13.01.2005 Shri Ajay Dwivedi, counsel 1 Heard on the question of adh The petitioner has filed t interim order dated 5. 10.2004 by ruling the objection regarding maii final hearing and posted the same fc The case of the petitioner is of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. His the case No. 40/MPIR/2002 u/s 3 the Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant in the Labour Court Durg. etitioner with 60% back wages Vide re-P/I). : Being aggreived by the of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant tor (Respondent No. 2 herein) filed urt, Raipur. In the said appeal, the t the admission stage and filed an )ility of appeal on the ground‘that authority to file such an appeal as ty before the Labour Court. It is veen filed by “agreived person”. It is tsel for the petitioner that since the The Labour Court reinstated the p order dated 16.8.2004 (Annexu aforesaid order, the Steel Authorityl Bhilai through its Managing Direc an appeal before the Industrial Cc petitioner made his appearance a objection in relation to maintaina} respondent No. 2 was having no respondent No. 2 was not a pat submitted that the appeal has not l the contention of the learned Gout br the petitioner. tission. 31's petition against the impugned which the Industrial Court over- 1tainability of appeal admitted it for r final arguments on 30.1 1.2004. lthat the petitioner was an employee services were terminated by Bhilai Steel Plant vide order No. 464 timed 09.04.2002. The petitioner filed l(3) of the MPIR Act, 1960 against GL DRJ—FS/35O—12/2000—50,000t anew (We). party/respondent before the Labovr Court, therefore, the appeal should be filed by him alone. Aiter hearing on above objection, impugled order was passed by the Industrial Court, against which the present petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Section 65 of the MPIR A:t, 1960 deals with the provisions of appeal. Aher going through provisions of clause (a) sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the MPIR Act, 1960 it transpires that the “person affected” or “the representative cf employees” or “the employer"can prefer an appeal to the Industrial Court against a final decision of a Labour Court in respect of a rn er falling under various clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 61 o the‘MPIR Act, 1960 refered to in Section 65 (1) (a). It clearly mea s that any person who is aEected by an order passed by thevLabour urt can prefer an appeal before the Industrial Court and no further ar or qualification is made for the $211116 . In the present case, it wast e petitioner who himself has arrayed the Managing Director as respo dent before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed the order da ed 16.8.2004. A perusal of memo of appeal shows that the Steel Au‘hority of India Limited is a party aggrieved which prefered an ap eal before the Industrial Court. The i objection taken by the petitioner ’s too technical. The management is Gil DRJ FS/350—12/2ooo 50,000. _ e s / 9.004 , WP. m3. 2977 WW W 200 WWm (W) mm EmW wmm Ww w W.K mmmam *2’1 $Wm v Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai was made a XI-HC—78 33W, WE, W3? N- P‘No. 3977 2W4— Wm Wé‘w W (Wu) Wm’m ‘3- mlly authorised to file an ap e ecting the n'ghts and liabil subordinate Court. In the opinion of this ( order warranting interference 1 oflndia. The petition is dismiss Consequently, M.W.P. ' stand disposed of. ' WWIEWW $Ww§¥l peal in such a matter in which order Lty of management has been passed by lourt, there is no infirmity in impugned nder Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution ed at motion stage. 810. 4378/2004 and LA. No. 8822/2004 ,_i Sd/— \7 Sunil Kumar Sinha . Judge