^^SllslB" igjsaMBjiii. IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. lio.^lC o£ 2002 Petitinier o^- :.^ Municipal Corporation , Korba Through its commissioner , Municipal Corporation, Saket ''•^^'^^S"^'^' Bhawan , Korba Dist. Korba ft-^°'A^5 '^^ Chhattisgarh t'S^ " ' -^***' i»"' ,.»< Vs. 1. The controlling Authority Under payment of Gratuity Act 1972/ Asstt. Commlssioner Chhatttisgarh Labour Korba, Writ pe-titioner under of India for issuanoe etc. 2. D S Bais S/o Shri Gohr Singh Bais, Resident o.f podi Bahar, Dist. Kat'ba , Chhattisgarh ^.S-ti.a'ts of cl-Aat&isg&rh, <:'o/'':-' .'':'i lsy g& thffough Sscretat'y'sapar&mar.t s, RaHt.ra.tayat Disfct, Ratpus'-,(c.<?:j XI-HC-22 Q,_^ ^^. '3^ •^ll^ld'M, 9i)l<l<ie, '!-siMI'M'J,< an^T^T Wt* anlsi stii-iicfr •M^a SB&.' li\ B-n. U.-.£.;.j0.i;.....^.!.P, an^i'reim'ofer >idn 'ectdir SIul Maimidra Sluivas', Shri Vinod Deshmiikh, and2. State by Shri Rajesh Shri Vinod Deshmukh b;' the decision of the Divisic|n W.P. No. 1329/2001 (Du-ect()ir, Society, Raipiir vs. U.K, decislon of the Suigle Bencpi (Steel Authority of India v^. Paynient of Oratuity Act, Dur^ This writ petition has the Constitution of India as passed by tlie respoiideiiL No. | Payment of Gratmiy Act, 197: No, 1 and 2 submits that thc of appeal under ftie Payment! petitioner subinits that thel applicable. It is stated by takeii as gromid m appeal. It is however, subinittetl pelitloner that as tlie Uinllati4)n '^Nfwf^T'4:nTi?Jf ^'fe^ iTsriigqsn^ .Itiva, couiisel for llie Pelitioiier. ^oiinsel for the Respondents No.1 Patide, Qovt. Advocate. slubruits that the Diatter is covered tench of this Court passed in ', Raipm' Diocess Educational M^ishi and Others) and also the passed in W.P.No.2653/2001 Controlling Aufhority under and A_nother). b^en filed under Ai-ticle 226/277 of the order dated 05/01/2002 CoiitroUiiig Aulliorily uiider tlie [2. Cminsel for the responflents ^ctitioncr has altcmativc rcmcdy jof Gratuity Act. Counsel for the provlsions of this Act are not dther side that this niav also be b^en ;alnst bv fhe leEuned counsel for the for Che appeal 1s 60 days, aiid, [Tte^{9t :£;L-HC-22 's^ '<fnm<f, ss^ilwis', i«i<viiuy ^..-..-2..:&s...:..^.o. Rg^I ft'KSII^? '^^ •y^ct aii^r ?l<iiW!ife •I- qinici41-i 'qriR? ^ te^ '{PT^R ^'siferasn^i Ra.ol tulue for soine tinie the authority ite4 of prosecuUiig tliis pelilioii, therefore, he prayed that some thc pctitioncr is not prcjudiccd) As prayed, permission is Havine considered the case and luatenal ori record, it application for condonation of considered by the Authority sj the fact that for some time the aad for such the petitioner har| was pending. Accordmgly tliis writ pl withdrawn with fhe liberty afoi)' Coiisequciitly I.A.No.276' ite41f was not notified and because for liliiig appeal lias lapsed, klirect.ion mav be issiied so t.hat ^ranted. ficts and circuiustances of the lis directed that in case suitable (jelay is made tlie same shaU be y keeping in view pLUthority itselfwas not notifled prayed this court and petition ;tition stands disposed of as esaid. /2002 also slaiids disposed of. 0.0. as per niles. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge rAAifcA