\HK EW,WW.W WW Q WW wW agwm Hwi’bée $h¥i Hsn’Me $h§i §$$Q§H AT E whizPL’ W a4fQIJRTQ5 WAR? 3hii‘ancm Mishra é; Q W 3hahdrakar PR} Na MMJ’QGQQ f%?biti’atian %$aéa§ r Rey, Sfo Shri $.S. FQoy, abouk 55 yearsy, 3/0 Shri Mathw, Raj Kishore Nagai", wrxjCG) 1 m‘ Endiax repreéented by, )ivésitmai ‘EngMeer ( Jeri 3;. 1 Eastern Raiiway, Bibspur Arbitration Cangiiiagmn Mag; ) ‘ (CG) $m§eai under Seaman 3? of the 199s we? for the appeilant. Present: Shri Asahok Pam ccu Order 20E cf Aprié, 20i‘v} Pa Shirencém Mighra. J:- The marker is Ested 0m deiauSQ. As .mer arke noie dated 05.02.200Q 'tha awwéamt haa neither naid sufficiem Caurt fee has Wed aay appiicaticn far ¢i m: w§ih memo sf appeai rm mmc‘rxaiion caf dekay in fiiing the appeal whim has men $iiEed with .L a deEay of 51 daysV “a. ,) Leamed caunse} for the apseiiant was ailowed two week’s ae €§me to remave the above dafau, vide order daied 31.03.2009. Ever; men, the defauit has not be n remeved ti“ daie. He further [113% W Carrra -FQ £§r9nkéi'9aat : PS. E‘£aii'st%ff aged $.P. BHas Kiersus Nah-armZimnf : Union Rmpmekm . Sr. i Sout‘ mmmw 9%ay5 for time to remove €he saEd cefaui’z. However: iaking mto \ ‘ cénsi§era$ian that tiw apgea! iiseW as been filed with a dam}! of 51 day's. and them is no anp‘ication for acndona€im of deiay med b‘v 1* thé appellant we are af the ogi icn thai weappeal has to be dEsmiswq‘. {A} ‘ Accordingiy, the appeal is i$missxad or; ‘the gmund of defalgfz. M’ww“ ~ ,/ W i \ 5d]- RAMISW " Sd/ ‘1 R;N. Chalidrakar mEND l i Judge R;N. D l \ Judge