HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHéAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No 1027i of2008 PETITIONER M/s Lafarge Indla Hnvate Ltd Arasmeta Cement Plant, PO Gopalnagar, ’ Dm JanJgr-Champa Through the Factory 2 VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The General Secretary Cement Workers Umon, Mazdoor Sabha Bhawan, Nandlm 1" ’ Road, Bhllai 490011 Dlstnct Durg (C G ) 2. Presxdmg Officer Labour Court BLIaspar L1 Notltied by the State Government under " sectlon 7(1) of the ID Act 1947 Dlstrlct’ ,7 Bllaspur Chhattxsgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DIDIA Manager Arasmeta C%ment Flam SB: Hon’hle Shn' Satish K Amou J. me Present: Shri Pradeep Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner v Shn P S Koshy, Advocate w1th Shrl Vmod Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No 1 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22na day of April, 2008) 1. This petition, tiled by the petitioner, M/n Lafarge India Private Ltd, challenges the validity of the order dated 08.01.2008 (Annexure P/7), whereby according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, his preliminary obj ection has been rej eoted without assigning any reason. 2. Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the preliminary obection has been rejected without assign'ng any reason on the j ground that earlier the application for stay of the proceedings filed on 01.09.2007, was rejected on 23.10207, with a condition that the same prayer may be raised subsequently in reply. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought- to have heard the applcation raising i preliminary obj ection first before deciding the case on merit; . Shri Koshy, 1eamed counsei appearing for ihe respondent No. 1 submits that the preliminaxy objection has not beefn rejacted‘ The Tribunal has v simply directed to file reply to the main petition 5 wherein the preliminary ‘ f objeciion can be raised and the same would be considered at the time of .e : - hearing to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal ofthe case. . Be that as it may, on perusal of the impug1ed order it appears that the preliminary obj ection was rej ected not on any substantial ground but with a condition that the same can be raised in reply to the main application. There is nothing with regard to hearing ofthe preliminary objection in’the order. , In the interest of justice, it would be just and proper if the pretiminary _‘ v objection raised by the petitioner is heard and decided at an early date a before the matter is taken up for final adjudication ofthe dispute. . Shri Saxena submits that the reply to the main petition would be tiled r within a period of two weeks. The matter can be considered aocordingiy in accordance with law. . I express no opinion on the merits of the case. The Labour Court may consider the disposal ofthe case expeditiously. . In View of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i Sdl-