HIGHCOUR^ ^GHMATTlSGARMATBIL.ASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM^ HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.CJ. HON'BLESHRISUNIl.KURtARSINHA,J. ARDetlant (Petitjoner)^ ResDondents WritADDealNo.175of2010 Suresh Kumar Chetal, S/o Late LR Chetal, Aged about 59 years, R/o R-1, Pankanj Vikram Complex Rajendra nagar Raipur,Distt Raipur •'•<.:.<CG):''^ . '::; :;.:.':/.:'...:'',v@^usy...-.,-.,. ..:•,,. i 1. Uniqn of IndiathFQugh TlieRegional Labour^C@rnn">j§sionei"i<C6ntral)tL-7, Sector — 1 ^ (Exfn) |Awanti Vlhar, Raipur-(CG) 2. Assistant Labour. Commissiorier (Gentraj) ; Raipur and Controlling ftuglronty under th& Payment of GratUity Act 1972, Behind Balaji Mandir, Anand NagarRiapur(CG) 3. The HindustanSteelWorks Construction Limited.Through - GroupGeneralManager,;Bhiiai,Distt Dui^-CG WritADDealunclerSection2<'llbfthe^©hhattisaarh;l-(itthCourt (ADDealtoDiviSiionBenchlAct.ZOOS PresenE Shri Virendra Sharma; learrted teounsel^ fo^ ^appellant/:...,..:^:,.,1'.,,,,-;^. ^,'; •l..,.: Smt. Roazia Mirza, learned Assistantl forres()0nclsntsN0.1&2.e JUDGMENT (3rd August, 2010) iThe fbliowing 'juclgmerrt of the Court^^w RajeevGupta,C.J. SolicitorGeneral ^. \fc <:; Learned counsel fbr the parties are heard on I.A. No.0172010,anapplicationfercondonationofthedelayinfilingfhe writappeal. 2) On idue corisideration of the submissions of teamed counsel for the parties and thegroynds taken in the apptication, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient causeforttiedelayinfilingthewritappeal. 3) I.A. No.01 of 2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 81 daystnfilingthewritappealisherebycondoned. | 4) Shri Virendra Sharma, leamed counsel for the appellant is •:heard,on'admissi6n.::: .':-.' .^':.- : •-. , : ••. .: • i - 5) Appellant - Suresh Kumar Chetal has filed this writ appeal againstthe impugned orderdated 08-02-2010, passed in W.P.(L) No.565^010. 6) The appellant/ petitioner filed writ petition for the fbllowing •reliefe::: •/ . :: , . • :; , . "10.1 That Hon'ble Court may kindty be pleased to issue aFipropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding tiT^ resporident No.1 issue RRG agajnst the respondent No.3 in respect to notjce dated 28/01/2005 (Annexyre P/1) - 10.2 That the respondent No.3 be directed to pay a penal interest @ 18% qn the due interest amount from the date it was due till thedate it is actuallv paidto the petitioneri.e. from 28/02/2005till date. [ 10.3 Any other order(3)/ direetion(s), which Ihe Hon'ble court may deem, fit and prqper may alsd be given includingthe costofthe petition." • \ ..'" '~rr'^s®^ ^ 7) The petitibner, thus in substanGe, vyas seeking a writ of mancferous fbr the compliance of the order/ notice dated 28-01-2005 andadirectionforespondent No.3~ fbr payment of penal interest @ 18% perannym. ,8) IVtuch beforeniing of the writ petition by appellant Suresh KumarChetalon 03-02-2Q1Q^ respondentNo.STheHindustan SteelWorks Construction Limited had filed a writ petitibn seeking quashing ofthe order/ notteedated 28-01-2005, whichcameto be registered asyv.P.No:Q37/200Sandis^pendingforhearing. 9) s ^theord^nQ$icedat6rf3£!^^£pS^as^ of ehallefige jn Ihe^^rif ^itiQM filed by^^ HindusfanSteelWorksConstructionl-imited'OA/.P.No. 937^005) ahd.thesameispendin&forheannginadirection'fbrcomRliance/ execution oftheorder/noticedated 28-01-2005 couldhavebeen legallyissuedinthewritpetitidnfiledbytheappellant/petitioner. 10); th^his view ofthe matter, we deem^^ft W.P.No. 937/20[05 beheardandfinallydecidedatanearlydate. ^11) Registry, therefore, is directed to list W.P; No.937/2005 for firralhearing inthemonth ofSeptember;2010:.^ 12) Withtheabovedirection.theWFitappiealstandsdiSROsedQf. :tK Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu