m wt 2 W WW.W.W am m . afggggzayg:..§§1..o/o2 Wm1i®a°tm $31mané¥r ARTICLE 227 OF THE 9F IEDIA SB: Hfm‘. SHRI BHiREiI'DRA fviiSii‘g J 5-12-2008 ate, for the petitioner. W’RIT PETI'T‘ION UEDE COES’T‘iTUTiGE The petitioner has f d the instant petition against the order of Annexure P-l dated 20. 1 .2008 whereby the preliminary objection of the petitioner against the intainability of application under Section: 2'2 of the Workmen’s Com ensation Act, 1923 has been rejected. Learned counsel fo the petitioner submits that the tribunaf was duty bounci to consi er the preliminary objection preferred by? the petitioner on merits the petitioner could not be compelled to participate in the procee s before the claims tribunal as the claim petition itselfwas not maintainabie. [dew a d d' g FETYT‘IDHER Ravi’Kumar. Chandm @ Ravi Chandra, Son of Yudhj:;hthir Chandxa, aged about 45 yearS, Caste-‘Chandrahanu, Occupation Agriculture R/o VLiHags and Post Pasid, Tahsjl Satangarh: District Raigau‘h (£16.) versus REgPOWDEH'T‘S l. The‘ Commissioner, Workman Compensation ' \ ‘ Act Labour Court, Raigarh (QGJ. 2. Gaj and, Son of Dukhi Ram Nishad, aged abo t 19 ycars, Caste Kewat, Occupaiion Nil, V' go and Post Pasid, RS. Kosir, Tahsil S garh; District Raigarh (C.G,) After healing leanled thmugh thg impugned oniqr petitionex’s objection regard coilld be considered on petition and as such, there error committed by the ’ exercise ofjurisdiction under in the result, the petition to be dismissed and stage. LA. No. l also stands counsel for this Court ing merits at the is no illegality, 1a‘nour tribunal Article 2'27 has no accordingly, it is dismissed. ‘i 31 i: l the petitioner and after going is 0f the opinion that the maintainability of the claim petition time of conclusion of Ciaim infirmity or jurisdictional warranting interference in of the Constitution of india. substance, the same deserves dismissed at the admission i Sd/- - U, Dhirendra Mishra Judge ‘ [View