PETITIOMR. a4” ‘ 2"”w’ @ Raju Babu Jaiswal s/c Sri Bhaga- wan has Jaiswal. Aged about- 35 year s , R/o V1 1 lage-Vi ndangggnj (Guai samer) khan-mam, Versus : (1) (2) Distt" SO‘ibhadra (UoP a) state of C.G. Through Collector Ambikapur, Distt— Sarguja(C.G.) The Commissioner Workman Compen- sentation, Libour Court. Ambikapur (C.G.) Ram BrikSh Mahato s/o sri Masan Ram Aged about- SOyears, R/o. Village- Prgnnagar, Police staton Basantpur, Tahsil-Wadrafnagar. Distt— Sarguja (C.G.) (4) Tahsildar (Revanue) Wadrafnagar. Ambikapur, D1 stt-s arguj a (C.G .) / 7 we“. he, .. “.“Me.,w»&”.eu.~..wa z. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(226/ OE CONSTITUTION Ogwl§2& m THE HIGH coum OF avnxcmm AT BILAspUR (c.o.) writ petition m.z%é3§ 2033 < W ,/ mmmm 09 . 09 . 2003 ‘ 5hri Manoj Par-anjpe, counsel 1: Shri Ranbir‘ Singh, 60W. Advm Heard bo‘l'h +hé counsei. " The pefifionerha‘s preferred of The’Consfifufion of India, cheHeng passed by respondent No.2 in Case No 6/2003 under- Workmen Compensahon ie of RoJu Bobu vs Ram Briksh Mahato y the petitioner under Section 151 of the r grant of stay has been rejected that respondent No.2 filed an application act for grant of compensation on account lleged that on’07.03.91, the accident took iondent ofKNoA3/ 'was expired and it was ook place due to the negligence of the ised 'Ram Sewak was serving with the ied on 07.09.91 during the course of his was further alleged that the petitioner is incident was occurred and work of the construction was being done with ut obtaihing the permission from the Electricity Department. Ultimately, t e Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court granted the award against the petitioner to the tune of Rs 67 914l- along With 12% interest from the date of the applicatjori against which the petitioner moved an applic tion under Order 9 Rule *3 of the C P C or- ‘rhe pefitioner. :afe for fhe Sick/respondents 1 & 4. fhis wrif p‘efifionrunder‘ Article 226/227 n9 fhe validify and propriety of The order Acf (for shorf “the Ac’r') in fhe ca‘ urhereby, The applied-ion preferred l: C.P,C. read wi'fh Rale 41 of fhe Aef fa The case of fheepei-ifioner is before The Labour Couri- under the i of fhe deafh of Ram Sewak. If was o place 'in which fhe only son of res} fur‘l‘her alleged iha‘t The occiden‘l' 1 pefi‘i'ioner' and o'i‘ 1'hai' lime decec pe’rifioner as a Coolie.’ Ram Sewak t employment due to electric shock. It , the owner of the godown where th 4 i i l l l Wm § . ...7€% m7 WW1§WW ésaqfwaném $3 is sTiH pa ding and fhe same is nO‘t §Wng decided. Therefore, if a direcfion be isued .fo fhe Commissioher, Workman CompensaTion, Labour Court To de ide the application wifhin Two weeks ’rhaf will be in fhe fi'l'ness of fhe things. Having heard ‘l'he learned co nsel for fhe parfies and having regard 3'0 fhe fads and circ‘umsfances of he case, I am of fhe opinion fhai fhe submission made by The learned co nsel for fhe peh‘haner is Jusf and proper ' since ‘rhe application for sfay h already been reJecTed m The given circumsi'ances, i’he Commissioner orkmen Compensafion, Labour Cour‘r, Is q directed +0 deade fhe apphcahon i§ and fhe app‘icafion is sfi” panding. Howevem 1'he applica‘fion for shy has been rejecfed; Learned counsei for- fhe pefif oner' submi‘rs fhaf Rs.85,000/- has already been deposifed by way of Demand rfaf'l' and ‘rhe applicafion of fhe pefifioner under Order 9 Ru! i fhe pei‘i‘rioner filed under Order 9 Rule of fhe C P C wrl'hln a period of ‘l'h r‘ly days from Today Accordingly, ihe wrii- pe'hho siands disposed of Consequenfly, M (W )P No 25 é/ZOOS & I A No 8350/2003 also s‘l‘and disposed of Pari'ies are en‘i'ii'led for cerfi ied copy of i‘his order i l i' i