(T ~^ ^v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Petitioners: 1. ^ / ^ Respondent: ^ Writ Petition No. S' 8 /200^ State of Chllattisgarh through the Supermtending Engineer, Public Works Department Raipur (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Division No. 2 Raipur. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Bhatapara District Raipur (CG) Versus SalChuram, S/o Shri Deolal, resident of village and post Bada Jarod, Tahsil Bhatapara District Raipur(CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA. [Ll.---—.-.- \i L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETiTJONERS RESPONDENT WRST?ETJT!ON N0,58 OF 2004 State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus Sakhuram (Writ Petltlon under Articie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Aiok Bakshl, Go'trt. Advocate for the State/petrtloners. Shrl Ashok Das Vaishnav, Advocates forthe respondent. (Passed GR this 18t-" day of'March, 2010) 1. This petition has been preferred by the State/petjtioners agalnst the order dated 29-8-2003 (Annexure - P./1) p&ssed by the jndustrial Court, Chhattisgarh, . Raipur in civll appeal. N0.238/MPIR/A-11/2000 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dlsmissed, as being time barred. 2. Shri BakshJ, iearned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ petltioners, submits that the petl-tioners have a good case on merits and the AppelJate Authority ought not to have dismlssed the appeaS on the ground of delay when the suffident reasons are being shown by the petltioners for condonatlon of delay< 3. Per contra, Shri Vaishnav, iearned counsej appearing for the respondent, submlts that the petitioners have faiied even on merits to establlsh their case bet'ore the Labour Court and the explanation offered by the petitioners before the Sndustrjai Court Is far from satisfaction, as no reason has been given, except that the State was jnvolved in day-to-day other depaitmenfa! and Government works, therefore, it shouid be condoned. 4. 6. 8. u% 1 have examlned the rivaj contentlons of the leamed counsej appearing for the parties, perused the appllcation filed by the petitioners before the industriai Court» The reasons assigned'for condonation of delay •in the applicatiora are; ^rsffy; on re-organlsation of the State of Nadhya Pradesh, the State was busy. In other Governmental/departmental worRs» No s.pecific reason asto hov^ the deiay was. occurred has been given by the authorities. The order passed by the industriai Court appears to be ynexceptionable,as in fact, no grounds.have been shown by the petitioners/State for conditlon of delay. Provlssons of Sectlon 65 of the Chhattisgarh industriai Relation Act, 1960 (for short "the Act, 1960") provide an appeal to the industriai Court agalnst a flnai decision of a Labour Court. Sub-ssction (2) of Section 65 of the Act, 1960 provides that the appeal shall be made withjn thirty days from the dale of the declsion. Second proviso to sub-section (2) provides for condonation of deiay, if syfficient reasons after the explry of period of thirty days has been glven. On perusai of the application 'and the decision of the Industriaj Court, this Court is of the viev^ that no suffident reasons have been offered by the petitloners and the order of indystriat Co-urt is Just & proper 'warranting no interference. jn th© result. the writ petitlon is dlsmissed. Consequentiy, l^.(W.).P.No.47 of 2004 is aiso dis'missed. There shall be no order ^sto costs. i • Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge