^,1 .. ..^]&^^ %£on';is^s£^--"""'^ (^ BEFO^IE THE HON'BLEHIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT ^F- r=^;. BILASPUR IN THE MATTER OF PRESIDENT - CHHATISGARHPARIVAHAN SANGH THROUGH SHRI GAINDLAL SAHU, SANJAY NAGAR ItAJNANDGAON C.G. 6a.35- W.P.NO. /06 C-c-&3 —-PETITIONER VERSUS 1. MANAGING DIItECTOR RAJNANDGAON ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. RAJNANDGAON C.G. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KANKER ROADWAYS RAIPUR 3. LABOURCOURT THROUGH THE PRESIDENG OFFICER, RAJTSTANDGAON -RESPONDENTS ^. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 'tf»' ^TS;%^ SSti;. OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ANY QTHER QRDER ORDIRECTIQN AS DEEMED FIT 'iff-.:. l.Si.£,_'_l_ XI-HC-22 3ti^m R-ii* sn^T iibii'vHf^tT 9W^i yst^WvPV, wiS\w\Q, Ri<ii«y 3T1^7TMach W P 6 2 3jT *TWWI 'ih*l|ch 2006 R<>«d 3TT^?T 6«11W fff^d 23.11.2006 Shri AP Singh, counsel forjthe petitioner, None for the respondents^ Heard. This petition under Articl( has been preferred for quashing the Judge, Labour Court, ftayn4ndgaon porte dated 16.12.2002 and cons|ec ori9inal Case No.Z/l&.Act/ref/^O restored for hearing. Petitioner has challenged the ground thfft- the labour Court) exportewHwd after 30 days. During argument, leamecf conceded that the award has notl of the Industrial Disputes Act, that the provision being director thesaward does not authorize th< and atso placed his relianceon th( in the mcriter of Srindlays Bmk Inilustrial Tribwwl and others 606. cbl<<?Cl<l1-l •<l*<<-f)fff&^t'<Rl'K;lt ^a.ri^ffgn^r 226/227 of the Constitution of India [the order dated 12.05.2006, passed by tndgaon whereby, order proceeding ex |equently award passed on 23.12.2002 in were set aside <md original case was |the legality of the impugned order on has no jurisdiction to set aside tts own counsel for the petitioner frankly been published so far under Sertion 17 1)947 (henceforth "the Act-"), but urged •^ and not mandat'ory, non-publishing of Court' to set aside its ex part'e award, judgment rendered by the Apex Court' Unltvd ys TJie Central 6<wermwnt ^epori-ed in AIR 1981 Siywie Cwirt svs: ^''•^-'•^yw^^w^^^,^^ ^—)iSiHS.?Z~3.!5iiS2um»aa«-...'~.-;.^<t^«>i"»' XI-HC-22 an^Rrw f^IWW^I stiw*af|CT & '•^•v padma •<=*^1'*.*»^*;;*;«1;*.»<>':«— aF^siraicpr, SifrEpre, («i<iwy 3T(^?TMa«h WWf) ShHltl Wl 200fa sn^TgRiTW^fN Hon'bte the Apex Cburt) &'imllays Baric (supra) has hekl I +i'i<fa<fl-i wRft"^'tetit <Rit<n ^sfrf^.an^l rendering judgment In the mafter o If-hat-:- Tribwial does ^t become iwfctious officio prowded epplicati^i is filed wfthin 30 days of pubtication ofaiM^I'1 Here, in the instont case, admittedly, in accordance wtth Section 17 of the Act, the exparte awarjl has'not been published, therefore, for setting aside the expartewwrd\person proceeded exfwte has ri9ht to move <m applicotion for setl-ir^ aside the »r,Ewr/B award and on sufficient grounds the Court ha^ power <md jurisdiction to set it aside and restore thesdmne for hearir^. In view of the aforesaid facts ond circumstances, the order passed be without jurisdiction, who by Industrial Gourt- does not appear to after tippreciating the facts md sufflcient grounds set aside the ex circumstances of the case has peyi-ewtiwd cnd rest-ored the eas4 for adjudication. No other grounds hwe beer( raised during <rgumaits. In the result, the peti-^ion deserws to be dianissed cmd accordingly it is dismissed OT lim'mi In the light of abo\] M.(W.)P.No.4603/2006 stand disp^sed of. e order, IA No.10758/2006 A f— •^SsaK^ V.K.SKNwtstw11 Judge (<fr^^w)