IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR. WRIT PETIT10N N0. 21 (& OF 2004. ./. ^>^"y PETITtONER ^fcy^(<"i^v~ : South Eastern Coalfields LS through L'^v<"'W'^''A-y' its General Manager, South Eastern ^xy «s? ^-y ^y/ its General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Raigarh area, District : Raigarh ( C.G. ). RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^...^ ^ ,^c°' v^^' : 1. Union of India, Ministry of Labour Through the Asst. Labour CQmmissioner (C), Dayalband, Bilaspur. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspurf C.G.). ^y ^^RtTPETmONUNDERARTICLES226/2270FTHECONSTITUTIONOF INDIA. XI-HC—78 tfl^K'IT ft»N!e»> 75T '<11<11<'1<1, ®Tl1y<IS,[sKII'My ..L>J!^>.-..:.....S^;l5?.._^^ > Wl,200tj 3i^?[TraqT (yits6"*?) 3ti^<[ ^I R'ti* ^ffiW^fcrail^i for thepetitioner. ftar respondent No.l/Union of 03/02/2005 Shri P.S.Koshy.learnedcouns^l Shri R:Pradhan, learned coun^el India, on advahce copy. Heard on IA. No. 7723/2004 \|rtiich fe an application for urgent hearing. The matter is taken yp ori Bcjard. Hence, IA No. 7723/2004 stands disposed of. Heard on admission. Petitioner-SECL has filed thi complaint of respondentNo.1 filed bi holding it to be devoict of merits. A prs Court below should be directed to fited vide Annexure P-4 first which is i the complaint and thereafter proceed has also prayed that the warrant S.N.Ghosh, Chief General Manager, 14/09/2004 be cancelled; It appears that on a complaint| the Labour Court took cognizance in] the said employee ofthecompany. Tt|ie reveals that Shri Koshy filed his meijno filed an application for exemption fr4>m said emptoyee on the said date. Th^ i4ti^fy^'i T:!n?if^f fs^ <^i^i< ^Tatfinsn^r s petition for dismissal of the ifore the Labour Court, Bilaspur lyer has also been made that the decide the application/objection irelation to the maintainability of with the matter. The petitioner of arrest issued against Shri Raigarh area, vide order dated being filed by respondent No.1, the matter and issued notice to order sheet dated 21/01/2004 of appearance and has also personal appearance of the application vras allowed and it XI-HC—78 tn'Rfrww^ "3^";:!IPIRTIT, si'CTl'M'Ko, fa<niyy .^J:^.....:^3^... TFFI.ZOOM 3II^?T Tra?? ( yit3«<i4) ^ilftfHT ^E? ^l<i!fl sb*i ^lftttSII^d ~ was directed that on the next datd fumished. Thereafter the case \A^S fixed on 15/WQ004, but the Presjding Officer of the Court wa^ again foced on 23/07/2004. On thi^ i+Tyi(ri<HH NiNfif ^ fs^ <pq^.i< ^sjRnaii^i of hearing, bail bond should be on teave. Then the matter was date the matter was re-fixed for 14/09/2004 for filing ofthe bail bonc). On 14/09/2004, thecomplainant aswell as the non-applicant, Shri G(iosh were notpresent and onthis date warrant of arrest has been issuejd againstShri Ghosh. Learned counsel appearihg for the petitionersubmits that in fact the proceeding before the Laboi|ir Court was not maintainabte and an objection vide Anriexure P-4 wa^ filed and the Labour Gourt was not justified in keeping this objec^ion in abeyance and ai issuing warrant of arrest against Shri Ghosh.) It is pertinent to mention this]Fact that thDugh the matter relates to a complaint filed before the L^bour Court and Shri Ghosh is defending the complaint, but the pre^ent petltion has been filed by the company i.e. the employer of Shri any petition against the impugned 01] him nor the eariier orders regardin| cognizance or direction to file bail b^>nd have been chaltengedby him or the Company. Presently, this court^ deali Shosh. Shri Ghosh has not flled der of issuanee ofwarrant against 3 issuance of notice or taking of ng ynder Article 227 of the Constitution,is not concerned with th|e technicalities ofthe matter. The *^rievance seems to be regardingl non-deciding of objection and issyance of warrant by the concemec) Court. > XI-HC—78 HI*1CTI ^iNlth S5^"41't!l<yl'4, 8>Ti1<-i<re, ftfliyy .^.±.....z^^ sil^F TI^? (yiti<«^I) V ft-fl* ^SH 3?!^?T ^RI^? ^^ (iwiw ^ft(( •*iA»i -?>- After perusal of t he records f|l appears that in e complaint case, ^i appearance through thecounsel did oftheCourtandremainedabsentonl then only the warrant of arrest has 4 justice would be served if a date is| the Court below and on the said dat order dated 21/01/2004. It is appear before the concerned Couil LabQur Court and shall fumish bail dated 21/01/2004. The Labour Cour) shall proceed fyrther in the matter b( ori pretiminary objection filed vide] regarding maintainability of the if any, issued against the employee directted bbnd Consequently, M.W.P. No.413 Certified copy as per rules. 1\' •tiiilt'i'fl't iWfif ^ ft'zt <Rn<(i< iKgfiiTsn^i led along with this^vrit petition, it jaid Stiri Ghosh, after causing his hot furnish bail bond as perorder Isubsequent dates of hearing and }een issued against him. Ends of Igiven for his appearance before (e he would file bail bond as per that the said employee shall pn the next date fixed by the in accordance with the order shall accept the bail bond and fixing the case flrst for hearing Annexure P-4 on 21/01/2004. Till then, warrant 6f arrest, be kept in abeyahce. complaint sHail Withthe said directions, the petition stands finally disposed of. 1/2004 stands disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ilU^'X^ ly tv w ^ ^