Gf^^ ^'l^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHRATTISGARH Writ Petition No, S-S /2002/ ^ Petitioners: 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Superintendmg Engineer, Public Works Department Raipur (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division No. 2 Raipur. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Bhatapara District Raipur (CG) Versus Bisoha Ram, S/o Panchram, resident of village and post Datrenga, Talisil Bhatapara District Raipur(CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/2f7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA. 3. Respondent: HIGH COURT OF CHHAT.TISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION N0. 59 OF 2004 State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Bisoha Ram (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners. Shri Sameer Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. 1. 3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 26th day ofApril, 2010) This petition has been preferred by the State/petitioners against the order dated 29-8-2003 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in civil appeal No.237/ MPIR/A-11/2000 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed, as being time barred. 2. Shri Bhatia, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ petitioners, submits that the petitioners have a good case on merits and the Appellate Authority ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay when the sufficient reasons, have been shown by the petitioners for condonation of delay. Per contra, Shri Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the petitioners have failed even on merits to establish their case before the Labour Court and the explanation offered by the petitioners before the Industrial Court is far from satisfaction, as no reason has been given, except that the ^ ^^•-^•^^, ,"'c'va{'\ '^ fi '^K?^ § CK:"i / •^'y^' State was involved in day-to-day other departmental and Government works, therefore, it should be condoned. I have examined the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the application filed by the petitioners before the Industrial Court. The reasons assigned for condonation of delay in the application are; firstly; on re-organisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State was busy in other Governmental/departmental works. No specific reason asto how the delay was occurred has been given by the authorities. The order passed by the Industrial Court appears to be unexceptionable, as in fact, no grounds have been shown by the petitioners/State for condition of delay. Provisions of Section 65 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960") provide an appeal to the Industrial Court against a final decision of a Labour Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act, 1960 provides that the appeal shall be made within thirty days from the date of the decision. Second proviso to sub-section (2) provides for condonation of delay, if sufficient reasons after the expiry of period of thirty days has been given. The Supreme Court in M/s Mandvi Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore1, observed as under : "8. The High Court judgment has given rise to these seven appeals, in which the following three issues arise for consideration by this Court; 1 . The extent of the right of the accused under section 145(2)oftheAct: 1 2010(1)8upreme 360 ^^.. a '^ ^ .••^^'.;^ 8. Whether the right of the accused is limited to cross-examination of any person giving evidence bn affidavit or is it open to the accused to insist that notwithstanding the evidence earlier given on affidavit, on coming to the court the complainant or his witness should first give deposition in examination-in-chief before being cross-examined by him? (appeals arising from SLP (Crl.) No.4760/2006, SLP (Crl.) No. 5689/2006, SLP (Crl.) No.1106/2007, SLP (Crl.) No.6442/2007, SLP (Crl.) No. 6443/2007, SLP (Crl.) No. 6703/2007). 2. Whether the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 145 of the Act would apply to proceedings that were pending on February 6, 2003, the date on which those provisions were inserted in the Act? (appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No.4760/2006). 3. Whether the right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to the complainant under section 145(1) of the Act is also available to the accused? (appeal arising from SLP (Crl.)No.3915/2006)." On perusal of the application and the decision of the Industrial Court, this Court is of the view that no sufficient reasons have been offered by the petitioners and the order of Industrial Court is just & proper warranting no interference. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge