e^ i^ /" mii MTHEfflGIICOURTOFOIfl^ r WR(L)No^^> /2010 >^ .-^* ^^•^:. ^xt^"' VSf^y" ^au\..- y YashwantKumar Lohiya S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Lohiya age about44Years, R/o Behind IndiraAawas, Usiapur, Kantkhar,Post-Sakri,Bilaspur(C.G) . • ' . StateofC.G • . Through-Secretary ' Water Respurces Dept. ' D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G) ExeGutive Engineer WaterRespurces.Dept. - .Jary.girBenchKenal,.: '.1 - - WaterManegment, Sub..-Division-2 . Janjgir, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G) Sub Divisional Officer: • JanjgirB.enchKenal, WaterMa;negment,Sub.-Division-2 Janjgir, Distt.~Janjgir-Champa(G.G.) CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA /2. /; I 1 II ^l i I II \':' ^" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH ; HON'BLE SHRI MANim?RA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. WritPetitioii|LLNo,755/20^Q PETITI02iER Yashwant Kumai' Lohiya Versus RESPONDENTS State of Clihattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri S.P. Kale, coi.msel for the petitioner. Shii N. Naha Roy^ Panel Lowyer for the State/respondents, ORAL-ORDER (Passed on 24.6.2011) 1. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finallv- 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits tliat the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner only on the grouxid tliat tlie applicaUon was made after 9 years. It is submitted that fhe Labour C^>urt has not. considered the merits of the case. 3. Leamed coiinsel for the petitioner submits that this issue was considered in the case of Ramkumar Suryavanshi Vs. State of C.G. & Ors1, wherein relying upon the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of AJaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and 2006 (111JFLR 946 ii -sa ^ -2- •^(1 another2 and other judgments, it has been held that the order of dismissal only on the ground of delay was not justttled. It is further submitted that the delay may be considered while granting the relief in adjudication process provided that the employer is able to establish real prejudice, 4, On the other hand, learned counsel for the State subniitted that. even though tliere is no specific period prescribed for limitation^ the application before fhe Labour Court was filed aft.er more than 9 years and, therefore, the Laboi.lr Court has ri^itty dismissed the application on fhe ground that tiie petitioner did not take recourse to remedy available to him under the law diligentty and slept over his right for several years. He further submitted that as the Labour Court was satisfied that on account of delay, the petitioner is not entitled to aiiy indulgence, Labour Court. was justified in not entering into the merits of the case. 5. In identical factual situation, this Court in the case ofRamkumar Suryavanshi (supra) has held that the dismissal of the case only on the ground of delay is not justitled, relying upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in the case of AJsiAb Siagh (Supra), Gurmatl Singh Vs. Principal, Grovt. College of Education and Ors.3 and S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karxiataka4. 6. The fmdmg recorded by the Labour Court shows that the Laboiir Court exercised discretion to reject the application on the ground 2 1999 (82) FLR 137 (SC) s 2000(84) FLR 920 (SC) 4 2003 (97) FLR 608 (SC) -3- ^C1 .<-i that the petitioner approached the Labour Court after a long delay. The order does not show that the Labour Court considered the matter from the point ol' view as to whether fhe employer has come out with any prejudice. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Labour Cx)urt has committed illegality in dismissing flie case without considering the case ofthe petitioner. Applying fhe principles of law lajd down in the cases of Ajaib Singh (supra), Guraiiail Siiigh (supra) & S.M^. Nilajkar (supra) as also order passed by this Court in the case of Raxxikiisixar Suryavanshi (supra), I am inclined to allow this petition. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside. The matt.er is remanded to the Labour Court for appropriate adjudication in accordance with law and fhe observations made by this Coiu-t m various judgments as well as by fhe Supreme Court referred to in the case ofRamkumar Suryavanshi (supra). 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen