(®/ smGLE BENW ® C /:'/o<9/// IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. No. - LMO aag 0F2006 $ PETITIONER /. . Krishna Sevak Sharma, S/o Shri Narmada APPLICANT Prasad Sharma, 53 Yrs. R/o Mathpuranina Ring Road House No. 55, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTSI 1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure /. NONAPPLICANT Development Corporation, Through Managing Director, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Transport, D.K.S. Bldg, Raipur(C.G.) Industrial Court of Chh‘attisgarh, Rai" u‘r(C.G.) / WRIT??? PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR INSSUANCE OF APPROAPRIATE WRIT IWRITS ‘ ORDERI ORDERS, DIRECTION I DIRECTIONS ETC. § XI-HC—78 (Z? m 0”?4Léq4f 1H 2005 WW(W) WWW WWW WWEwW mmmm ésmm 1-9-2006 Mr. Harsh Banafar, counsel for *he pe‘rifioner. Mr. Vinny Pandey, Panel Lawyer for- fhe Sfate/respondenf No.2, on advance copy. Heard, on admission. By fhis wrif pe‘rition un ' Arficie 227 of fhe Consfi'rufion of India, the pa'ri‘rioner has quesfioned the I gaii‘ry and validify of ‘rhe order da‘red 25-8- 2005 passed by 'rhe Labour C r'r, Biiaspur, whereby the applicai'ion of +he pefifioner for resfora‘iion of hi applicafion has been rejecfed on The ground fhaf The said applicafion has be n fiied beyond The period of limi‘ro‘rion of 3O days and fhe pefi‘rioner has no been able To show sufficien‘r and reasonable cause for non-appearance, as aso The order daTed 5-5-2006 passed by The IndusTriaI Tribunai‘ Raipur‘ w ereby The learned IndusTrial Tribunal has rejecTed The appeal of The peTiTi ner‘ X have perused The impug ed order o'f The Labour CourT, Bilaspur as well as The order of The IndusTriaI ibunal, Raipur, in which both The CourTs have held ThaT The peTiTioner has no been able To show sufficienT and reasonable cause for non-appearance on 29- -2003. In The applicaTion and in his evidence, iT was menTioned ThaT on accou T of fracTure The peTiTioner was hospiTalized , whereas as per The cerTificaTe, he was discharged on 28-4-2003 and e was noT confined To bed. Moreover, The peTiTioner was represenTed by advocoTe Therefore, non-appearance of The advocaTe on The day of hearing as also noT been explained. AparT from ThaT, The peTiTioner's applioaTion dismissed on 29-7-2003, whereas The resToraTion applicaTion was file on 16-9-2003, Thereby beyond The period of from 21$2003 To 31-7-20 P.T.O. d r r 0 w WW WW(W) XI—HC-78 @ mam mméwm MFRWW KZ~ WW§WW %aqf%usn%¥r 3O days limifafion and i'r has no' occasioned and no applicafion for cv In fhe circumsfances, I dc interfere wi‘rh fhe above orders w 227 of fhe Cons'rifufion of india, orders impugned. The wri‘r pefifim hereby dismissed, a? fhe admission sfage i'rself. No order as fo cosfs. Consequen‘i'ly, I.A.No.8659/ Somo i been men'i‘ioned fha‘i‘ how This deiay was indonm‘ion of deioy was aiso filed. i noi find any subsfance in This pe‘i’i‘iion 1'0 mile exercising The Jurisdiction under Ar‘i‘icle as fhere is no illegality or infirmify in ihe I is therefore, iiabie To be dismissed and i1- is / 2006 sfands disposed of. ' Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge P.T.O. mw,m,i%mrqgt w' ?«¢.éfifi Fri 200g