IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N04688 /2004 $§g§¥5 A . g0)” Indo Lahari Bio ’Power Limited, through : Its Manager, Jarauda, Tah and Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) $o‘ \ q c‘Q" J / PETITIONER I§€€§ VERSUS RESPONDENTS /L é; State of Chhattisgarh, through The lndustrial Coutt, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sohan Lal Baghel, son of Rikhi Ram Baghelkresident of village Jarauda, PO Tarra, P.S. — Dharsinwa, Tah and stt. Raipur(CG) Visheshar Khunte, son of Birsingh Khute, resident of village and Post Mangoli, Tah and distt. Raipur (C.G.) Sevaram Verma, son of Shri Manrakhan Lal Verma, resident of village and Post — Khanna, Police Station — Dharsinwa, Tah and Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) V T PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT / WRITS. ORDER / ORDERS AND DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. ”x The above named, Petitioner, most respectfully beg to submit as under:- Di / TI Em%m€v7 ‘ ’ ' m v @ 3a 21mm, Egawa W3? W§W $ V ¢ .w‘Vl‘Ja‘ITLQ? 3mm (W) W‘WWW ‘ WW&WW 10.2.2{){15 Shri Virendra Shanna, c-ou sel for the petitioner, Shn' Sudhir Agrawa], Pan 1 Lawyer for the State on advance copy. Heard on admission. The petitioner has filed s petition against the impugaed order dated 16.72004 which is a common order passed in MiscAppeal Nos.167/MPIRJH 2003, 168/MPIR/HIX2003 and 169/MPIR/III/2003. These Mi c. Appeals arise out of the order dated 20.1 1.2003‘ passed by the our Court, Raipur. in 3 separate cases namely Proceedings No.25 IMPIR/ZOOL 254/MP1R/2001 and 255/MPIR/2001. These appeal were filed before the Industrial Court against the aforesaid 0rd r by which the labour Court has ‘directed the employer to pro ice certain documents on filin application ofthe employees (res ndents No.2 to 4 herein). of the impugned order that the employess had preferred 3 separ te cases under section 31(3) read with section 61 ofthe M.P(C.G) dustrial Relations Act 1960 and in these..proceedings, the aforesa applications for production of documents were filed by them ch were contested by the employer and the orders dated 20. .l 1.2003 in 3 diEerent cases) were passed by the labour Court. It transpires from the orders that in fact, the/ It transpires from para G1. pRJ—FS/350—l 2/2000—50,000. i h g i W i ,/ 3E“; mw, WW; fm g? I ing9§§€w °f$ ‘ % 20G PRJ—FS/35 12/200 0,00, ‘$ \z ”4'; 49? J: if . é 3“ £x GL0 0 50 4 4 $“ § -