(£wgx IN THE HIGH COURT OF UDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1’” K X WRIT PETITION NO. Q g‘?’ OF 2003 PETITIONER: ,— m Lal D‘UmK Nm/{bhm—JF X/ \ . I ms, U mgk r {4’} L/QKW1 J)nr\+l3(ar"l Te ’7 \ F magi; i' ’ New Bus-Stalldl K, Dcunr K Hm/{M’Iomw 311w“; Ru; sad Rm I ‘2 T Bllaspur (C G ) CHhq“H"Jq{I7 CWY6o4 ¢J $J‘e Hrjy€L Ca,” Bgf(l¢—,/ AJ—RJ LC/w 1/5 / In Cmr‘I’Kddm ’ & edM ”—1 Q) . Akhll Pandey, s/ o Srl Manharan Lal Pandey , aged about 41 years R/ o High court Road, Bilaspur , Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presiding officer, Labour’court Bilaspur Dlstrlct Bilaspur (C G ) / i , ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘“ OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS; / ; W RESPONDENTK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISéARH AT BILASPUR Wr'H Pefifion No. 887 of 2003 Pe‘l’ifiomr' : Dainik Nav Bhar'a'f Versus Respondenfs Akhil Pandey & ana’rher- Eirigle Bemh: Hon’bie Mr. Jusfice $a?ish K. Agnihofr’i. Nana appears for fhe petrifioner'. None apyear's for The respondents. O R D E R (23rd August 2006) On perusal of fhe paper's, if appears fhaf the impugned order dared 2.1.2003 {Annexure Pi’11) was passed ex-par‘fe againsf fhe pe‘rificner' on accounf of fhe facf ’rha’r his caunsel died during pendency of fhe proceeding before fhe Labour Court The pefi‘iioner cauld no? asceri'ain fhe dm‘e cf . hearing. The Labour Cour‘f proceeded ex—pari‘e by order doied 11.9.2002 (Annexure P/5). The petiifioner filed oppiicaiion dm‘ed 10.10.2002 (Annexure P/6) for sefi'ing aside The ex-por'ie order do’red 11.9.2002 passed by ihe Labour Cour'l' in Case No. 8 IDA/2002 (Ref). Admifiediy, fhe period of limi'i’a’rion for filing an opplica’rion To sei' aside ex~parie order is 30 days and The applicoiion was filed wifhin The limi‘iafion period. Hence, ’rhe subsequenf impugned order dofed 2.1.2003 (Annexure P/li) is no? jusf and proper as fhe application +0 set aside ex—par-fe order dafed 11.9.2002 was filed wifhin fhe limi‘m‘fion period. The Labour Cour? ough‘; f0 have accepted The applicafion and considered fhe applica’rich on merit The applicai'ion is rejecied an The ground fhai i'he same was filed beyond The period of limifafion. Thus, if is held ‘l’haf The appiicafion for seffing aside The ex—parTe order daTed 11.9.2002 was passed wiThin The limiTaTion period wiThouT goihg inTo meriTs of The case, which may prejudice The case of The parTies. The maTTer is remanded back To The Labour CourT for deciding The applicoTion daTed 10.10.2002 (Annexure P/6) filed by The peTiTioner for seTTing aside ex—parTe order daTed 11.9.2002 (Annexur'e P/E) passed by The Labour CourT, in accordance wiTh low. ConsequehTly, The impugned order daTed 2.1.2003 (Annexure P/11) is se‘l‘ aside and The Labour CourT is direcTed To decide The maTTer, as expediTiously as possible, preferably, wiThin a period of Three monThs from The daTe of receipT of The documenTs from This CourT, afTer issuing noTice To The par’ries, fixing The daTe of hearing wiThouT being influenced by any observaTions made hereinabove, in accordance wiTh law. The RegisTry is direcTed To remiT back The papers of The case’To The Labour CourT forThwiTh. The peTiTion Ts accordingly allowed To The above exTenT. No order as To cosTs. Sd/— Bablu sassh K. Agnihom Judge