‘\ 1« v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR LCHHATTISGARH) w. P. No. is 7—oF 20g; ’ PETITIONER , Akhll Pandey, S/o Shrl Manharah ‘ <; ‘ ‘ V ' . ' Lal Pandey, aged about 42 years,‘ ' ‘ I - > ' ‘_ R/o near Blharl Talkies, High ‘ i ‘ Court Road Bllaspur,Tahsdand ’ District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS HESPONDENT'S 1. Praba’ndhq Saampadak, Prakash r ‘ Maheshwan Navbharat Karyalay, Navbharat Nlkun], Ramdaspeth \ OWL/JyWNagpur—Mo 072 (Maharashtra) v Prabandhak Dalnlk Navbharati‘ _ Bus Stand Road Bllaspur, Tahsu . & Dlstrlct Bllaspur (Chhattlsgarh) 3. U Collector, District Biiaspur (C.G.) 4 Tahsiidar; Bilaspuvr, Tahsil and Di5trict Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) j ,ORDER OR OD. _ - , Smnla Batu“ a "w i A »,.4 RERS ‘ o Sh a S dvate Wlth Shn Afmz L 1" ha or h e m, _‘ 0/ ‘ ~ .' V/ ‘ I i _e se' e pctjtiioxierf,‘ is that t b r s‘ s g/ob2 (Rem paséed ar u t oer eg hls remstatement v ‘v d e0 od of 60 days ‘It s e itt v a respondents no 1 d eti 1de‘ W.P,No.887 of . sls umi voresadwx‘uat petiemi is i weve r ra he Hlgh Court 1n g d by the Labour V or urte esonets no.1 and 2 have cmpe otroisi sction l7—B of the ndra s c -4 t i o tte that the :Deputy abr issonr he e f Lar Commissioner, a a e ctor:_Bilasbur for‘_ or s rue) payable tot-the .. new 1 Wm Lo‘00o¢ooooo¢[o§‘?;o§ m 200) WW(W) 02.03.2005 n Mamndra Shnvastva, r Aoc Kn, f te petltloner Hald on adimssn‘ _ . a “Thé “submssion of1¢arnd cgunl fof th , > he labur dout, Bjla'pur m c‘ae NaIQDLA/2 an Awd in favgi of he penun ductm Wlth fullfback wages. an all bn€ts w1thm a pen i furthr submed thafag meed by the awrd g ' en? preferred a wn‘t pnon before tbs Court y a 2oo3‘' Llt is aa" "sbtted teat theafi i I bendng] Hor thee is no stay gnted by t ’ the sald wnt petltlon aannst the award passe t > Cut It 1s fhr subrmt ed that rpdn not ohd w1th the mandaty/pyons of e ’ iustil Dtputes At 197ff I s als submid Lou Cominie 1n '; Onio o bou V ‘Chhttisga'rh hs sent a rquisition to the. Colie recvey of amountgia arrears ofrland even LHc-7s “ oooovoo‘ W 200V Wm<m> mmfrwm aamm ‘ petltloner 1n comphance of t ’I The Collector thereafter h be aforesaid award dated 11 09' 2002 transferred the case for recovexy of the amount to Tahs1ldar Bll spur and the Tahsddar Bilaspur has back as on 19.06.2003, but the‘ the said Crourrtv ahd ‘no substantive leained )mlts that a memo m this regard was 7 1ssued by the Tahsddar on Of' 08 2003 d to callfor the, records of the earlier any order of stay etc has been passed ’ ltement made at the Bar that no stay s Courtm the earher wnt petmon and order, the same ls not bemg called Panel Lawyer for the State is also ‘ ‘ 3 & 4. ' ‘ ,ade by, the learned counsel for the be‘ disposed of with' a direction to mplete the proceedings of execution at loner who ls an unemployed person ‘. orders are bemg passed ‘ Referring to Annexure P—5 v mitlated the proceedmgs ‘ proceedings are lingering m / counsel for the pettt10ner su Tl'ns Court was mclme petltlon to see as to Whether L or‘not, butJn vtew of the su order has heen,passed by. thJ ) f ‘1 thiS’Cotrlt is‘free to pass any Sh'ri Bhaskar fPya'shl, appearing for respondents Nc Arlimited prayer is II peh‘tioner that this petition respondents no 3 and 4 to co :the earllest so that the petr mmmm _ mam ' «i— H ‘X 13am, Wan—gr;W ‘ § x . .oooooo‘¢o.oo ooo...o. a 200 mmGEfiaiw WWW ~3’ r WWEWW aimm may get some relicf on thc 1 passed in his favour. This f rsspondenxs no.3 an‘d 4. In the Bpim'on of this C to respondents no.1 and 2 concerned. Hence this cm pertaining to Annexure P-S h: respondent no.4 till date then possible preferably within a period of of the proceedings as early as eceipt/ production of certified copy of ’ six months from the date of this order before him.” A copy of this order alongwith an application shall also be tiled before res ondent no,3/ Collector, Bilaspur who t f will monitor the functioning f respondents no.4 and see that the order passed by this Court is omplied. With the aforesaid d' ection, this petition stands finally disposed of. )asis of the award dated 11.9.2002 Irayer is not opposed by counsel for amt, no notice is required to be sent ;o far as the said limited prayer is u't directs that if the proceedings ave not been finalized] disposed of by respondent no.4 shall try to dispose Th:i~ Sdl— QC. as per rules. I i 1 KSmish K. Agnihotri' Judge t'\\‘ r