1 2026:CGHC:25644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 253 of 2019  Nandlal Sahu S/o Shri Palturam Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Quarter No. 1470 New Kashi Nagar, Korba East Chhattisgarh. Through General Secretary M.P.E.B. Now C.S.P.D.C.L. Majdoor Sangh Shakha Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Superintendent Engineer (Power House No. 2) C.S.E.B. Now C.S.P.D.C.L. Korba (East) Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Member Judge Industrial Court Chhattisgarh Raipur Mahanadi Khand Near D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Presiding Officer Labour Court Bilaspur Now Korba. District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. B. B. Roy Labour Contractor Through Superintendent Engineer M.P.E.B. Now C.S.P.D.C.L. Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.24 14:13:09 +0530 2 23.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned 12.04.2018 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the suitable direction to the learned labour court korba for deciding the matter of the petitioner accordance to the provisions of law, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2) Facts of present case are that the petitioner/ workman moved an application under Section 31 (3) of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 which was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide ex-parte award dated 28.9.2001 and said award was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing WP No. 4985 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 2.1.2018 and matter was remitted back to the concerned Labour Court and parties were directed to appear before the said Court on 22.1.2018. However, on the said date and subsequent dates, petitioner/ workman could not appear therefore application moved by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.4.2018. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties were directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 22.1.2018 but no notice was issued to the petitioner and subsequently the 3 matter was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.4.2018. She further submits that learned Labour Court ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing when no one appeared on behalf of petitioner. She prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 22.1.2018 but there was no representation, therefore application moved by the petitioner was rightly dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2018. 5) Heard. 6) It is true that parties were directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 22.1.2018 but petitioner did not appear therefore application was dismissed for want of prosecution. As there was a specific direction by the High Court in WP No. 4985 of 2004 to appear on a particular date therefore there was no occasion for the learned Labour Court to issue notice to the petitioner. 7) It appears that petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 12.4.2018 rather than filing an application for restoration before the learned Labour Court therefore as there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favor of petitioner, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to move an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC seeking restoration of application which was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2018. 4 8) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed. 9) If such an application is moved by the petitioner, it is expected that the concerned Labour Court shall decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a