I ERE THE HIGH COURT AT LAX MI NARAYANDUBEY, OFFICE ASSISTANT GRADE—I a ACCOUNTS-OFFICE, M.P.E.B, TIFRA,B1LASPUR, NOW RETIRED,R/0.BEHIND SANTOSH BHUVAN HOTEL, DABRTPARA‘, BILASPUR (C.G.) ‘ l. MADHYA PRADESH ‘ FLCTRICITY BOARD NOW MADHYA PRADESH STATE LLCTRICITY BOARD THROUGH SECRETARY M,P.S.E.B., RAMPUR, JABALPUR (MR) O ‘ RETIRED ASSISTAN CHIEF (ACCOUNTS) ~ AT JABALPUR, (,MCARE OF ‘ SFCRETARY MFSFB. .IABALPUR(MP ) k T,, LABOUR COURT BILASPUR, _ RAJIVE GHANDI MARG, OLD SBR COLLEGE, ' ETLASPUR (CG) - BFO " A ~> A ‘ « wk . N T VERSUS . . w PETITIONER (an A\ . CHI-IATTISGARH STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY NERGY DKS BHAWAN MANTRALAYA RAIPUR (C G ) S I ATE OF M P 1 HROUGH THE SECTRETARY ENERGY AND POWER, VALLABH BHAVAN, Bl IOPAI (M P) UNION OF INDIA THROUGH I HE SECRETARY TO THE ‘GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND POWER, NEW DELHI RES POND ENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DE EM FIT T WW @ W ..gL.éé/.wg mm (Wu) 3200 anésWiW WWW Wmm WW wm %3i§fqam%¥r 31 1.2005 Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocc for fhe pefi‘rioner. 5hri Thakur' Vijay Singh, 52‘ India/ respondenf No.7. Heard. ‘This pefi‘rion has been filed passed by fhe Labour Court Bilasl pei'ifioner, filed under Sections 31(‘ ‘l'he M.P. Indus'rr-iol Relcfions Acf, 19 [Te wifh Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Counsel mior Standing counsel for Union of agains? file order- dafed 15.3.2004 :ur by which anopplica‘rion of fhe 3) read wifh’“$ecfions 61 & 64-A of 0, claiming en‘riflemenf To fhe pos‘r of higher- officer-s cadre and dire fion To fhe Board to appoin‘r fhe pe'iiTioner in the higher officers co re along with some other reliefisjhas been dismissed. During the course of arg ments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly t e order passed by the Labour Court was appealablebefore the Industria Court under Section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act 1960. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed on 15.3.2004 whereas the petitioner has retired .said situation, he argues that since the petitioner is no more a workman within the meaning of law, on 31.12.2002. In 'l'he lighjl' of nfo )f s \ GRPRJ—FSBSOkiZ/ZOOO 50,000. W31 applicable, ‘rherefore, he has no? av and has direcfly filed This wrif pe'm In The opinion of fhis Cour‘i, ' The peTiTioner is noT correct SecTlon 65 of The M.P.IndusTrial RelaTions AcT, 1960 deals wiTh The provisionsi SecTion 65 is quoTed as under Appeal:- appea/ shall Iie fa fhe Indusfrial (a) ailed The sTaTuTor-y remedy of appeal ion before This Cour-T. yhe conTenTion of learned counsel for (1) Noiwifhsfandi a againsf a final decision of maffer/ fol/fry mder clause 0" PamWPh (B) 0" Pam 61 by fhe ”person affected” ar- fhc rcpresenfafivc of )f appeal. : (only relevanT porTion quoTed). anyfhing canf'ained in The Aer, an urf— 'a Labour Cow-f in respecf of a (a) or clause (c) of paragraph (A) all (0 of sw-scafian (1) of sea-Tim (d) rho stare €ovcrnmenf: Provided fhaf no appeal slu Courf under secfion 107. ll lie ogainsf an order of a Labo/w / GRFRJ FS/350 [2/2000 50,000. for. anhancemenf of senl'enee awarded by a Labow Court by WW W260 ~Wm<$afga§m Wmm» ~ 7,— WW wm $3imcmé$r employees or flle employer; (b) againsf a convicfion by a Labour Court by filo person convicfad; (a) ogainsf The aaquiffal by a Labour Cow-f, by Mo Sfafe Govemment' ' mammm, my W v- $2G0 ‘mm (W) WWW #3_ WWW‘§WW $3imm GRPRJ FS/350 Sub-clause (a) of Section 1 of Sec-Hon 65 deals with The provisions Thaf The upped shall be filed by 111a person offecfed or fhe represenfafive of ‘rhe employees the employer. In fhe opinion of fhis Cour'l', since fhe order has been passed, affecfing ‘rhe rights of fhe pe‘rifioner, ‘rherefore,,1’he pe‘ri'ri ner can be classified under ‘rhe expression of word “person affe fed” under Section 65 (1) (a) of fhe Act and on appeal by fhe s person would be compe‘renf and mainfainable before fhe Indus‘l'rial Court Since an al‘l'erna'i'ive rem y of appeal is available wi‘th The pe‘ri‘rioner, 1'his Cour? is of 'lhe op nion Tha‘r ‘rhewrif pe'l'ifion should no? be enferfained before The said re edyLexhausfed 5 by The peTiTioner. While dicTaTing The order learned oounsel for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT as per The provisions of sub-secTion 2 of SecTion 65 of The AcT, limiTaTion for filing The eal is 3O days, Therefore, some observaTions be made so Tha'l' Th appeal filed be enTerTained by The IndusTrial CourT. Needles To say aT This s age ThaT There are provisions for condonaTion of delay in filing Th appeal. The peTiTioner may file an appeal, availing The provisions o condonaTion of delay in The manner prescribed and if such an appeal is filed along wiTh an applicaTion for 12/2000—50,000. T a p mac—7g 3a 1mm, WWW, W§ $§ 2m:- mwm aw a‘m‘i §iafw ¥ j waftvié‘w W '§ wzl @RV ‘wr. 3W1 gamw condonafion of deiuy, 'rhe same be considered and disposed of by The Industrial Court on i‘rs own meri s in accordance wi‘i’h law. Wi‘rh ‘rhe aforesaid obser iions, 1his pe'l-iTion stands finaily disposed of. In View of This order I.A.No 7355/2004 for urgenfhearing aiso s‘rands disposed of. Sd/— Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge