ct-""^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. ^03 ^/2003 Petitioner -^ RESPONDENTS •>*' .^c^ -•y\^y^ .^&yy ^••>^ '..0 •^ / President, Maa Bamleshwari r Trust Samittee, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS fl. Chintamani Singh, S/o Shri Tribhuvan Singh, 2. Rajendra Prasad Mishra S/o Kamla Prashad Mishra 13. DheluRam Mandavi S/o Raniulal Mandavi ^. Ramdas Patel S/o Milap Ram Patel |5. Dilip Ram S/o Budharam Nirmalkar 6. Biselal Patel S/o Guhari Ram Patel 7. Punu Ram Gond S/o Raghu Prashad Patel 8. Siya Ram Yadav S/o Ghasia Ram 9. Lalchand Verma S/o Tullu Ram Verma 10. Bharat Ram Ghandravanshi S/o Anand Ram 11. Santosh Baghel S/o Bahal Singh Baghel 12. Rajesh Yadav S/o Prem Singh Yadav j 13 Chhabilal Yadav S/o Bukhalal Yadav ^^f^ r as / 1 ^ 14. Tarun Singh S/o Narayan Singh 15. Kapurchandra S/o Dayaram Chandravanshi ,16. Santosh Tiwari S/o Ramkumar 117. Dwarka Verma S/o Lathkor Verma 118. Johar Ram S/o Damru Ram Verma !19. Tijuram Patei S/o Tegi Ram Patel All Care of:- Shri Rajendra Prashad Mishra S/o Shri Kamla Prasad Mishra, Resident of Misicha Bara, Kalka Para, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) [^Q. Presiding Officer, Labour Court under I.D.Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L...... ...,<.- COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR li^ W.P. No. 2093/2003 Petltloner Versus Respondents President, Maa BamJeshwarl Trust Samittee, Dongargarh.- Chintamani Singh-and others. Shri H.B. Agrawa! learned Sr. counse! with Ku. Sangita IVlishra for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi counsel for respondents 1 to11, 14, 15 and 17 & 19. ORDER (Passed on 9.3.2007) Learned counsel for the petitloner submits that the petitioner does not vvant to press any other ground except that the petltic-ner be granted an opportunlfr^ to ralse a ground cn rnerit as well as on facts before the appeilate authority, if such an occaslon arises regarding the iega!ity and validity of the inquiry, to whichlearned counsei appearing for respondents 1 to 11, 14, 15 and 17 & 19 has no objectlon. Even otherwise, the submlssion of the petitioner seems to be justified and reasonabie as by order of this Court dated 1.7.2004 proceeding was permitted to go on but the fina! order was directed not to be passed. Accordjngiy, thls petltion is disposed ofvvith ilberty as aforesaid, No order as to costs . —-~' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge