1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4278 OF 2009 (State Bank of India Workers Organization vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2009. Heard finally Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Shri Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Bank has raised preliminary objection. He contends that the petitioner – Union had approached Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) for redressal of grievance of two of its members and those members are entitled to receive pension and if the matter is not restored and decided on merits, it will be a permanent loss to those members. He further states that one of the members for whom matter was filed, has already expired. He points out that earlier, the matter was at Jabalpur and then it was transferred to Nagpur CGIT. The matter was being regularly looked after by the petitioner or one of its members. There was only one absence or lapse i.e. on 09.03.2006. He further states that steps have been taken thereafter to get the matter restored and laches or delay therein is not 2 deliberate. I have perused the papers and I find that the petitioners are correct when they state that there was only one lapse i.e. on 09.03.2006. An application for restoration of said reference was moved before CGIT on 19.04.2006 but as it was after a month, the CGIT had become functus officio and hence the application was not entertained. It appears that the copy of award could be received by the petitioner only after it was published and the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has got the award on 21.06.2007 and thereafter they have obtained certified copy of order sheets to show that except for said date, they have otherwise diligently contested the proceedings. Here, Shri Kumar, learned counsel points out that there was no appearance for the petitioner on 29.11.2005 before the CGIT. The matter was pending before CGIT since 2003 and the facts above, therefore, show that except on some occasions, it was diligently looked after by the petitioner. The absence on 09.03.2006 cannot be stated to be deliberate or malafide absence. The petitioner or its members were not to gain anything by remaining absent. In the circumstances, interest of justice demands that the matter should be decided on merits by CGIT. The inconvenience caused to Respondent No.2 can be appropriately compensated. The petitioner shall 3 pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to Respondent No.2 on or before 15.12.2009 and subject to such payment, the award dated 09.03.2006 in CGIT/NGP/72/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said proceedings are restored back to CGIT, Nagpur, for fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before CGIT on 5th January 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. JUDGE *GS.