Kishan Kumar Gupta, S/o. Late S.P. Gupta, aged about 36 years, R/o. Opposite Patei Ladies Tallor, lev/Sarkanda, Bilaspur(C.G.) 2 Employer, Dainik Desh Bandhu Samachar, Biiaspur (C.G.) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, under Industriai Dispute Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) Om Prakash Gangotri, Adhyaksh, Lai Jhanda Majdoor Dayalband, Bilaspur.(C.G.) (Appea! to the DEvision BenchlAct, 2001 ni: Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counse! for the appelianf. ith L-;_ The following judgment of the Court was passed ^ Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Appeliant Kishan Kumar Gupta who was respondent No.3 in the writ petition Tias filed this wrii appeal against the impugned order dated 28-04-2009, passed inW.P.(L) No. 2333/2008. 3. RespondentNo.1, the appeliant's employer filedthe wri petition for She following reliefs :- "1. Hon'ble Court may kindiy call the entire record from Learned Labour Court Bilaspur jn Case No.51/IDA/98(Ref.). Hon'ble Court may kindly queshe/set-aside the award dt. 08-01-2003 passed by Learned Labour Court Bilaspurin Case No. 51/IDA/98 (Ref.). That ttie other order/ reiief which Hon'ble Court 2. 3. deem nt may be granted." 4. In the writ petition, quashing ofthe award dated 08-01-2003, passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 51/I.D.A./98 (Reference) was sought. 5. Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submisslons of learned counsel for the parties allowed the writ petition in the followlng terms :- "6. Thus,the impugnedaward dated 8.1.2003 deserves -to be and is set aside. The matter Is remanded back to the Labour Court with a direction tb decide the dispute raised before it after recording a categorical finding in respect of appointment of the petitioner, nature of ailegation and the date of the remQval/termination order, if any, passed jn writing or made orally. The award shall be passed afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. Having regard to the fact that the dispute was raised on 7.10.1998, the Labour Court is directed to consider and decide the matter, as expeditiously, as possible, preferabiy within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a eopyQfthis order. ,A The petition is allowed to the above extent. orderastocosts." 6. Shrl Vinod Deshmukh, learried counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 seeking quashing of the award passed by the Labour Court after five years ofthe passing ofthe award. 7. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeilant and the fact that from She impugned order it does nof appear that the ground of delay was pressed tnto service by learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing.of the writ petition and the fact that the learned Single Judge has only remanded the matter to the Labour Court, where the appellant wii! jet full opportunity of raising all the grounds before the Labour Court and so also to adduce evidence in support of his claim, we do not find any ground for interference in this writ appeai. 8. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summariiv. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Suml Kumar Sinha Judge nimmi