f IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU 2&8 § WRIT PETITION NO. /2005 PETITIONER IS) State Of Chattisgal‘h Through Secretary Water Resources Deptt. Mantralav Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Superintending Engineer Water Resources Deptt. Shivnath Division Durg, Chhattisgarh Executive Engineer Tandula Water Resources DIVISIOI’i ‘ Durg; Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTIS) 1. Chhattisgarh Jal sansadhan Vlbhag MajdOOr sa'ngh Thr‘Ough- YaShwant SahU Mahamatri BaSDaI‘a Durg (Chhattisgarh) i :4? V R n 2. Presiding Officer Industrial Court Raipur (C.G.) 5. Presiding Officer Labour Court Durg (C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ W §HT$ WW WWII—é mama? b9..f...v9.o..§...$.°§........, ...... 1112005 anéiwnéafm aananéam mammaiaaa) ‘ WMIMW mmmaalw aiaiWanéel 15.07.2005 ' Mr. P5. Koshy, Ieamed Dy. Advocate Gsneral for the State of Chhamsgarh I petitioners. Leamed cou‘nsal appear for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 has filed apptication under Section 31 (3) read with Sections 61 and V64 of MP. tndustriat Relations Act, 1966 seeking regularization of daily wage employees in Water Resources Department. Tandula The Labour Court. aner having considered arguments of all the arties, has come to the conclusion thatkthe daiiy wage employees are deprived of the same salary what regular employees are getti g. Aooordingiy, the Lahour Court directed the regularization of se ices of the member employees of respondent No.1. Being aggrie d, the petitioners fried an appeal under Section 62 'of C.G. ln ustrial Relations Act before the industrial Court. The appeal time barred by one year eleven months as limitation prescribe for appeal is 3O days. The industrial Court has dismissed e appeal on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitio ers submits that decision of the Labour Court may have reperc ssions on other employeesalso. Learned counsel further s mits that ;.prayer of granting regularization without directing f0 consideration is back; . , \ Without going into merit the case in the interest of justice it is desrrable that delay of one y ar eleven months in tiling appeal before the industrial Court be ondoned Accordmgiy. the writ petition Is partly allowed to extent that the Crvrl Appeal e SP/FS/2005‘20,000 i 9 4 s 83‘ WW, mug, Wait w€m¢t§€$& M200 r anéeim (331E331) anéstwiéaiaa mmmméa ammetamim 3mm aim'ai WW#MW F2, assiWanésT No.113/CGIR/A-IIIO4 be ratored ta the file after condoning the delay for decision on merit. Accordingiy, the matter is remitted back to the lndustriai Court for censideration of appeal i Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge i Sd/— i Sarma / SP/FS/2005—20,000