IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No.161 (M/S) of 2003 Ram Bahadur Sharm S/o Sri Nand Ram Sharma . .……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and another ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. Heard Shri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.D. Paliwal, the learned counsel for the respondents. The workman being aggrieved by an order of the Labour Court dated 29th March, 2001 has filed the present writ petition. It transpires that the Labour Court while considering the preliminary issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court, eventually, issued an order for payment of cost of Rs. 500/- to the workman in lieu of deciding the preliminary issue. This order was passed at the instance of the authorized representative of the workman. The petitioner before this Court has alleged that no such statement was made by the authorized representative before the Labour Court. In my view, in the absence of any affidavit of the authorized representative being filed before this Court, the Court is of the opinion that such allegations cannot be taken into consideration. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the direction of the Labour Court, he should have filed a recall application. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner, if so desires, may move an application before the Labour Court for the recall of the order dated 29th March, 2 2001. If such an application is filed, the Labour Court will consider it on merit and will not dispose it on the ground of limitation. (Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J.) Dated 18.11.2009 Shiv/Bhaskar