^5.^-1-^x^^^ fy^s^-- (^'OW7. IIMI W,_R_ILlNo.^o^ Hcirde.ORamS/oShriRamdhari^^S^-^. R^o-Qtr. No. A/73 Irrigation Colony Rampur, Korba (C.G.)' ; 1. Executiv&Engmeer .• Hasdeo Baraj Water Resources Dept. • Rampur, Korba (C.G) . . • . 1.. Presiding Officer Under.Industria! DisputeAct 'Labour Court, Korba (C.G) 226- & 227 Ml^ |%@ii;{|j|gjij|g||g|%|%|^^Bi^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (L) No. 3059 of 2009 PETITIONER Hardeo Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri S.P. Kale counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O RD E R (10.11,2010) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, relying on the decision of this Court in Naresh Giri Goswami v. State of C.G. and others reported in 2008 (3) CGLJ 126 has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') on the ground that there was delay of 12 y-'aars and therefore the application was not maintainable. According to him, even the merit has been considered in a cryptic and casual manner without going into the details. 2. Counsel appearing for the respondents supports the order impugned and submits that the petitioner being a daily wager is not entitled to any relief in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretarv, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others reoorted in f2006) 4 SCC 1 . 3. Be that as it may, the decision of this Court in Naresh Giri Goswami (supra) was passed in a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, directly without taking recourse to the provisions of the Act, 1947. The prime consideration of the court below was on the ground of.delay. In Ram Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, while considering the question of delay, it was observed that prejudice has also to be considered particularly in the "•!-^, 'J ^,^^€?^ ^^&^-^^ %^. ^J^ ^x^ —-Z— facts of the case, when the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the provisions oftheAct, 1947. 4. In view of above, the impugned award dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Korba is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Korba to consider and decide the case firstly on delay in the light of several decisions of the Supreme Court and by this Court including Ram Kumar Suryavanshi (supra) and secondly on merits as well, as expeditiously as possible. 5. Writ petition is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge CT^