\w “ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAIRH AT BILASPUR 6 Wn't Petition C No.232 of'2010 . 1 ! PETITIONER: Roya$ Infraconstru Limitsd, regis ‘cred o$ce 18 R.N. Mukhexjee Roa , 6th Floor Kolkata, 700001 and aving a Work shop at Urla Induystxial Growth Centre, Sector — c, 31m; No.209, Raipur 493 221 (CG) 3acting through its Authorized. Signatoxy Mr. Dewadhi Sac, son of Shrif B.D. Sac, aged about 4O yeal$, Genoral Manager, Royal Iafraconstm Limited, R/o Sector— 4, 8th Biock Shivanand Nagar, Raip'umco) Versus General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG) Senior Divisional Engineer (Go— ord.} South Eastem 'Cexxtral Railway, Bilaspur (CG) Divisional Rail Manager, Bilaspur Division, Railway Region, Bilaspur (CG) RESPQNDEN‘TS: Present: Shn' Manoj Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Naushina Ainn Ali, Counsel for the respondents. Division tench: Hon’bie Shri nhke’ndra Misha a; Hon’ble Shri RAW. Chandrakar, JJ. ORDER (ma—2010} ’ The following order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of Annexure-P/S whereby the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs.3,22,Q20/- in reference to their memo dated 24-12-2009 issued by respondent No.2 from» the bills raised by the petitioner. L D h) . Bdei1y stated, case of the pen'tioner is that the petitioner wae earlier registered as Royal Forgings Private Limited (employer), a company, which entered into an agreement with the fespondents railways on 26—9—2002. The agreement was for a period commencing from 6th w E‘ebruary, 2002 to 5&1' February, 2003(1 Subsequently, the petitioner was converted as M/s Royal inftaconstrue Limited. The saiii company was awarded contract work by the railways on 27th February, 2009. He raised a bill for a sum of Rs.28,58,480/—, 'however, a sum of Rs.3,22,920/— has been deducted from the aforesaid. bills on the ground that the aforesaid sum was paid by the railway in compliance of the order dated 20-8—2009 passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation cum Assistant Labour Court, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) to the legal heirs of deceased Arjun Lal, who died while in employment under the petitioner company on 20—4—2003 in a railway accident. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that from bare perusal of the award of the Tribunal (Annexure—P/4)? it would be evident that the petitioner company was not a party before the Tribunal and one Central Royal Forgings Kolkata, through Divisional Railway Manager (employer) was arrayed as respondent. The award was passed eX-parte without notice to the petitioner. t On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner is guilty'of suppression of material facts. The petitioner has concealed the fact that earlier the contract was extended on 2 lag occas1ons by the respondents and the same was in force till November, 2003 She further argued that the respondents depos1ted y r $> \\ t 0rd L ’ 7 I -\ \\_;i b The awarded sum w1thm 3O days as per the prov1$1ons of the Act Royal Forgmgs Pnvate Lnmted and M/s Royal Infraconstrue Lmuted are same. The petlhoner d1d not d1spute the petltloner’s 1rient1ty as described before the Tribunal as non~app1icant No.2 in its earlier correspondences of Amlexute-Pi5 andi Annexure-P/7 and the only objection Iaised by the petitionef was tllmt his address was wrongly ‘ mentioned in the application for :compensation and ex-parte proceedings were drawn without no1ice to the peh‘tioner. The amount has been recovered as per clause 24 and 57/ ofthe general conditions of the contract and direction of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The pentJoner, apart from ralsmg the dlspute of 1dennty of employer as mennoned 1n the order of Annexnle-P/ 4 has also taken a ground that deceased Aljun Lal died in the accident on 20-4‘2003vwhcreas the agreement between. the petitioner and the respondents was in force till 5-2-2003 (Annexure—P/Q). However, from the document (Annexure—R/ 1) filed by the respondents and not disputed by the petitioner, it is clear that the date of completion was extended tiil 3rd November, 2003 on the request of the petitioner without imposition of penalty. 7. From the documents tiled by the petitioner, we also 13nd that the petitioner did not dispute the identity of employer in its earlier correspondences with the railways. In any case, the above disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. It is open'to the petitioner to challenge the impugned action of the respondent railways by tiling appropriate civil proceeding or proceeding under the, provisions of the agmement, in accordance with law. _ Sd/— ; - Dhirendra Mishra Judge Barve