(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.3.10 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in B. S. & E. Case No. 3/2007 whereby the petitioner's preliminary objection of maintainability of the application under Section 26(2) of the Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Act has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 17.4.10 whereby learned Labour Court has fixed the date for evidence. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed an application dated 17.4.10 seeking a direction on the opposite party to prove 240 days attendance in one year in support of his claim of compensation, but learned Presiding Officer without disposing of the application dated 17.4.10, fixed date for evidence.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. By order dated 29.3.10, learned Labour Court after hearing the parties and considering the facts and materials on record has come to the conclusion that the application filed by the workman was within the prescribed time limit. The other objections are required to be proved by adducing evidence. He, therefore, did not find any merit in the application challenging maintainability and rejected the same. According to the petitioner-Management, he filed another application dated 17.4.10 (Annexure-4) whereby he sought a direction on the applicant to prove 240 days attendance in one year for getting compensation as per the claim petition. By order dated 17.4.10, learned Labour Court directed the applicant to bring evidence to substantiate his claim, fixing 27.4.10. Since the petitioner in his application dated 17.4.10 wanted the same direction, learned Court below has directed the applicant to bring the evidence in order to prove his claim.
(3.) I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.