1 2026:CGHC:19464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 114 of 2025 * - Santosh Kumar Bareth S/o Late Baisakhu Ram Bareth Aged About 59 Years Ex Labour R/o Villlage Kapan, Tehsil Akaltara District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus * - Research Officer Quality Control Unit , Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner/Workman : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Labour Court Janjgir-Champa, to restore the petitioner’s original case no. 163/I.D.A./2013, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution and same would be heard on its merit, in the interest of the justice. 10.4 That, any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deemed fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked under the respondent for period of 02 years from June 1984 to 1986. His services were discontinued by the respondent contrary to the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act (I.D. Act) Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.29 19:56:16 +0530 2 and therefore, an application was moved before Assistant Labour Commissioner and reference was made under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. He would contend that the matter pending before the learned Labour Court was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.02.2014. He would submit that an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC was moved assigning sufficient reasons and said application has been rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025. He would contend that the learned Tribunal should have decided the reference on merits. It is also argued that sufficient reasons were assigned in the application moved under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anway Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent would oppose. He would submit that the reference matter pending before the learned Labour Court was dismissed on 20.02.2014, whereas application under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC was moved on 29.09.2023 and sufficient reasons were not explained by the petitioner. He would submit that the learned Labour Court rightly rejected the application moved under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It is well settled principles of law that the reference should be decided on merits. In the present case, the petitioner/workman raised a dispute, but failed to appear on 20.02.2014, therefore, the original case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner moved application under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC on 29.09.2023 alongwith an application for condonation of delay, but the learned Labour Court rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain delay. The 3 learned Labour Court ought to have taken lenient view while considering the application moved under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC and application for condonation of delay as the petitioner was a daily wage employee and reference was made by the competent government under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. 6. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and reasons assigned by learned Labour Court, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the learned Labour Court for consideration afresh. The learned Labour Court shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 22/06/2026 and the learned Labour Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 9. Consequently, this petition is allowed. 10. Registry is directed to transmit the original records, if any, to the concerned Court along with a copy of this order forthwith, for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti