PETIT3i@NS& W WSSESA P&ABESB AI .TABAIWR , , ^ •*•.*— 11.- ^ : • . 's."G>1 <:<°''-i' . IKBlI PE?IT3iEM N©<~5<tol °_^94. i S'tate ®fWgelbya Rradesfe.'tehroHgh e Exesative Bafi.laeer, B*K«M Aykat BAvislon, Bllasptaffg ; ••'•• aESPOHBBSIS . - 'yERSEIS - S 1. Ihe Beputy Siaboap Ghatissarfa Regioa, aaipur.' 2./'i'bfi Pfesldiag QfSleeTf' I.<aboi.u? dourte, B-U.aspur.r ' 3^ V«B<Blwaa S/Q.Shrl P»D»DiwaH, R/o Hew Sarfcaada, Bllaspurs EE^TIiM UHBER A&I3X!LES 226/227 OB- THS GQEISTiroilON ~ 0V •SSOIh. :: •• -.' ; - • . • '. • - 111;'; : •1 •^^^^gj^^^ KS-SWT^^^'WBBftirest^-!?*'- "^is^il •V HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPtJR Writ Pedtfon No. 3610 of 1994 Ptetitmiier : StateofMadliyaPradesh Vcrsus Respoiidcnts : The Depuly Labour Comaussinner & otfaers Ma^e Bencb: Hon'ble Mr. Justice SatUk K. Affdhotrl. Shri Pankq Shrwastava, coimscl for fhc Petittoner. Sbri Bhastor Pyasi, couasd fbr fhe aespondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (23"> Februaiy, 2006) 1. Tbe xespoiident No. 3 was appointed as Daffly Wages Emptoyee on the post of Ssaveyor Grade-II on 4.10.1985. The respondcnt No. 3 naade an appljca&m. on 8.12.86 fcr teave. Tlie petitioiier departincnt did lurt giant lcave and tenninated flic suvice ofttic iiespoitdent No. 3 w.c.£ 19.12.1986 wtthout pstying retrenchnaent compeasadon. 1. -r; 2. Bcmg a^rieved, the Tespondcnt No. 3 fifcd an qipUcation befoic fhe Laboi.ir Court, Bitospur. The Labour Gouit, Bflaspur after heming both the parties hdd that the tenumation order was not valid. AccoBdingfy, (hc Labour Court by the awaid dated 8.8,94 (Aancxure-A) gianted icinstetement wifh 75%> badr wages. 3. Tbe petitioner, btiiag aggfseved, SSed writ petition under Artfcte 226/227 of thc Coastitutfon of hitlia m thc High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 1.10.1994, pisgnng that fhe impaffied awaid dated 8.8.1994 bcquashed. | 4. The High Court fcsued notfce on 28.9.1995. llicniafter the petitiofler i- i ; fiuted to psy piucess fee, tDI date. When tte inatter was taten up^ir hearing on default, leamed oouascl Eqtpearu^ &r ft»e] for sometuoe to fite process feses. Loaldag iato thc cioadnctofj^ac •s^. petitioxicr, where fhe petitioaer itseB" bas taten thc matter veiy casuaUy by not paying fhe process fee for more fhan 10 ycara. At this stagc, if the petitioner is pcnnitted to fite process fise afler a period of 10 years it may iiot subserve interest ofjustice. B^ren on merit, I ha»c perused fhe impugned award passed by the Labour Court, fhere is 110 perwrsily or irregularily feund in tbe impugncd awaxd. Tfae awari is based on cogent evideace ai»d after having appVed thc proper law. i.Tbe petitfoner has deprived fhe reapoiaient No. 3 fiom ttie benefit of the award dated 8.8.94 for xnore tban 10 years by not filing even (he -piocess fee ia fhe aiatter. No uitenin relief was gianted ia faafour of tfae petitioner. In vicw of fhe foicgoing, it docs iiot cafl fi>r any mterfereace with fhe award passcd by the Labour Court ia exercise of jurisdfction under Articfe 226/227 offhe Constitutfon oflndia. Thc petition is accoidxa^y dJsmissai. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge