IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23748 of 2008(B) CP.91/2000 of LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONERS: 1. B. VIJAYAN, SHINU BHAVANAM, NENMENI, MANDROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM. 2. V. USHA, SHINU BHAVANAM, NENMENI, MANDROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM. 3. P. CHITHARANJAN, KARTHIYAYANI MANDIRAM, PERUMTHURUTHU, MANDROTHURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM. 4. N. REMANI, VADAKKEKUNNATHUVILA VEEDU, ULIYACOIL, CHERRY, KOLLAM. 5. T.S. LATHIKA, PUSHPAMANDIRAM, UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAMCHERY, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. K. CHAKRAPANI, SLESMAN, T.S. NO.18, KURAVANPALAM, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PRAMOD BHAVAN, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. M.PADMALAL, SALESMAN, T.S. NO.19, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PUSHPA MANDIRAM, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM. 3. R. VASANTHAN, SALESMAN, T.S. NO.20, 2ND MILE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT MAHESH BHAVAN, ULIYKOVIL, KOLLAM. 4. N. SIVADASAN, SALESMAN, T.S. NO.20, 2ND MILE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT MAHESH BHAVAN, ULIYKOVIL, KOLLAM. 5. K.K.CHANDRAN, TAPPER, T.S. NO.25, PEROOR, KOLLAM RANGE, KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 23748 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Ext. P1 ex parte order of the Labour Court, Kollam in C.P.No.91/2000 and Ext. P4 order, whereby the petitioners' application for setting aside the ex party order and the petition to condone the delay of 1265 days in filing the same were also dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not present continuously for hearing of the petitions. According to the petitioners, who were opposite parties in the claim petition and the petitioners in the application to set aside the ex parte order, their advocate did not inform them about the dates of posting in time. From Ext. P4 order, I find that the applications for setting aside the ex parte order and the petition to condone the delay were posted for evidence several times and ultimately it was ordered that no further time would be granted to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioners did not appear on the date of hearing. In such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioners, who are guilty of inordinate delay and laches at every stage of the proceedings before the Labour Court, are entitled to any more indulgence either at the hands of the Labour Court or this Court . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge. W.P.C. No. -: 2 :-