THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.22099 of 2001 10.12.2010 BETWEEN; Gunupuram Malleswara Rao, S/o. Adayya, aged 35 years, R/o.Purushothama Nagar Colony, Narasanapet, Srikakulam District ...Petitioner vs. The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and three others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.22099 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner, whose services as Assistant Cook wer retrenched, has filed this writ petition challenging the order date 24.06.1999 in I.A.No.69 of 1999 in I.A.No.191/89 on the file of th Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, as illegal. 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed to work a assistant cook on a salary of Rs.315/- per month in the Governmen Boys Hostel (S.C.) at Kodur village, Srikakulam District and he wa retrenched on 09.10.1988 without following the procedure unde Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short ‘the Act’) Complaining non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sectio 25-F of the Act, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.191/89 through the Unio Leader one Chapara Apparao. The matter appears to have undergon some adjournments and ultimately, the I.D. was dismissed by order dated 24.08.1992 on the ground that the petitioner was absent and tha the aforesaid union leader reported that the petitioner was not comin to him. After considerable length of time, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 1999 seeking restoration of the I.D. The said I.A. was dismissed b reason of the impugned order stating that the petitioner did not file an document in support of the reasons mentioned in his affidavit fo restoration. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent though served notice in the writ petition, none has appeared nor an counter has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the failur of the petitioner to participate in the proceedings in I.A. was due t unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause was shown fo restoration. He would contend that the reasons assigned wer sufficient for restoration of the petition. 4. I have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support o the I.A. and also the counter filed by the third respondent, viz., Distric Social Welfare Officer (S.C.W.) Srikakulam, in the said I.A. Th petitioner pleaded that he was availing the services of the union leade Chapara Apparao. There was bereavement in the family due to th death of his father, who was ill and bedridden before his death and tha it was difficult for him to maintain his family. He also pleaded that hi authorised union leader also died in the year 1996, therefore, he wa not in a position to know the status of his case. It may be mentione that the said reasons if really existed, constitute sufficient cause. Th third respondent in his counter filed in the I.A. did not dispute th correctness of the aforesaid facts, although the third respondent wa opposing the petition on the merits of the case. The facts relating t the demise of the petitioner’s father and the other circumstance mentioned in the affidavit were not traversed nor denied by the thir respondent. In the circumstances, there is no justification for insistin upon the petitioner to file documents in support of the reasons. I am of the view that there was sufficient cause for restoration of I.D. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the order in I.A.No.69 of 1999 i I.D.No.191/89 dated 24.06.1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribuna cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam is set aside. Eventually, th I.D.No.191/89 is directed to be restored and proceeded with i accordance with law. 6. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 10th December 2010 Rns