...^ /, 'M (A- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ^ ^.\ / -^ ^,i> /^y / j. e..- Petitioners: 1. 2. 3. \WL./ ^y ^ ^ V.- ^"f ^ Respondent: Writ Petition No. ^7 /20044 / State of Chhattisgarh through the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department Raipur (CG) The Executive Engineer, Public Department Division No. 2 Raipur. Works The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Bhatapara District Raipur (CG) Versus Beniram Verma, S/o Shri Boruram resident of village and post Deori, Tahsil Bhatapara District Raipur(CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES OF BNTOIA. 'oOF THE CONSTITUTION ffli^^Mi^a^ai ?-( HiGUCQURTQFCHHA1"TSSGARH,:,BSLASPUR PETITiONERS RESPONDENT PeilTJON N0.570F of Chhattisaarh & Others Versus • Benlram Verma fWrit Petjtion under Artlde 226/227 ofthe Constltution ot' india) Slngie Bench : Honsbie Shrl K»Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Alok Bakshl, Govt. Advocate for the State/petltioners. Shri Ashok Das Vsish'nav, Advocates for th©respondent. OR.DE!i.(QRAL) ^sl (Pass©don thls 19irl day of March, 2010) 1. This petitlon has preferred by the State/pelitioners the order dated 28-8-2003 (Annexure - P/1) passed by th© Industrial Courl, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in clvii No.,239/ MP!R A/A-11/2000 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dlsmissed, as time barred. 2» Shrl Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the petltioners, sybmlte that the a good case on m^rits and the ApRellate Aythoritv ought not to the cn the aroynd of when the sufficlent are shown by the 'for oondonation of delay. 3, Per oontra, Shri Valshnav, counse! for the respondent, submits the on merits to thelr before the Labour Coyrt the expianation offered by the petitioners before the Industrial Court is far from satisfactlon, as 110 reason been given,. the State was involved In -day-to-day other and •Government works, therefore, it should be condoned. <'^- 5. 4< 1 have examlned the rival contentions of the Searned counsel appearing for the partles, perused the appllcatlon by the petltloners before the industriai Court. The asstgned for oondonatlon of delay Iri the appilcatlon are; fh^tly; on re-organisation of the State of IvSadhya Pradesh, the State was busy In otner Governmentai/departmental works. No speciflc reason how the delay occurred has given by the authorltles. The order by the Industrla! Court appears to be unexceptionable, as In fact, no grounds have been shc^^vn by the petltloners/State forconditlon ofdeiay< Provlslons of Section 65 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial ReSation Act, (for short "'the Act, 1960") provlde an appeal to the industrial Court against. a finai decisioo of a Labour Coyrt. Syb-section (2) of Sectlon 65 of the Act, 1960 provides the shal! be made within thl?ly .days from the date of the decislon, Second provlso to syb-section (2) orovldes for condonation of delay, If su'rtjclent reasons after the axpiry of period ofthirty days has been gjven,. On perusal of the the declsion of the Sndustria! Court, this Court Is of the vlew that no suffldent reasons have been offered bv the petitloners and the order of Sndustrial Court Is just & proper warrantlng no interference. Sn the resylt, the. wrlt petitlon is dlsrriissed. Consequentiy, N.(W.).P.No.46 of 2004 is aiso dismlssed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge