1 1 19.08.2026 Item No.12 Court No. 30 Aloke WPA 19733 of 2019 General Manager, Telecom Raiganj, SSA -vs- Raiganj SSA BSNL Shila Sahayak Union & Anr. Mr. Rajib Mukherjee Ms. Shreyasi Bhaduri Mr. Sourish Mukhrejee … for the Petitioner Mr. Debdutta Basu Ms. Soumalika Nandal … for the respondent 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an Award dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta passed in reference case no. 2 of 2014. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ application on the ground that the petitioner’s application for setting aside of an ex parte award has been rejected and dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the said order is an appealable order and the petitioner cannot avail of two methods to challenge the award. Once the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of an ex parte award, the petitioner has to proceed only in that manner. 2 2 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner by ignoring the order of rejection for setting aside of the ex parte award, has now directly challenged the ex parte award, in the present writ application, which it is submitted is not maintainable 5. Respondent relies upon the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 626 (Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar & Anr.). Paragraph 37 of the said judgment is quoted below : “We have however, no doubt in our mind that when an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code is dismissed, the defendant can only avail a remedy available thereagainst, viz. to prefer an appeal in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. Once such an appeal is dismissed, the Appellant cannot raise the same contention in the First Appeal. If it be held that such a contention can be raised both in the First Appeal as also in the proceedings arising from an application under Order 9, Rule 13, it may lead to conflict of decisions which is not contemplated in law.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there is now a delay the Court may give liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum by condoning the said delay. 7. Considering the said submission and also the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the wrong forum, that 3 3 is before the writ Court, the writ application is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum by preferring an appeal as provided under the Code. The period of limitation be condoned on the ground, that the petitioner was pursuing his relief before the wrong forum. 8. Writ application stands disposed of. 9. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalitites. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )