Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee v. Mani Ram Shrivas

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 175 of 2018 Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Thermal Power Station, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Korba (East) Through The Superintendent Engineer Office Of Chief Engineer, Generation, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

1. Mani Ram Shrivas S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Aged About 57 Years R/o Super-F, 953, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba (East), Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh

2. State Industrial Court Bench At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents Office Reference Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/03/2018

1. The PUD has been received from the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Korba, Chhattisgarh, in respect of Case No. 3/CGIR Act/2010.

2. This Court while entertaining WPL No. 6316/2011, on 22.08.2017 had allowed the writ petition and after setting aside the award dated 14.03.2011 had remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of pleading evidence to the petitioner i.e. the State Power Generation Company, who was the respondent before the Labour Court. This Court had also directed the Labour Court to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months.

3. The PUD now has been sent by the concerned Magistrate stating that the Labour Court was without a Presiding Officer for quite some time and thereafter the present Presiding Officer has assumed the

-2charge only on 22.01.2018 and thus has prayed for grant of extension of time.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and reasons explained to be justified this Court grants a further period of 4 months time to the concerned Magistrate to conclude the proceedings before the Labour Court Korba. It is necessary at this juncture to direct that the Presiding Officer should ensure that the adjournment should not be granted for more than two weeks and the adjournment also should be granted only for genuine and reasonable cause and not just for the sake of asking.

5. The matter is an old matter and it requires a prompt adjudication. The Presiding Officer should see that the parties to the dispute are not granted unnecessary prolonged adjournments on repeated occasions and every effort should be made to conclude the proceedings at the earliest.

6. The PUD thus stands answered in the affirmative and the MCC stands disposed off granting an extension of a further period of 4 months from the next date of hearing.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved