.^.....-^..^. ^^s> \. ^'^ ^'.^' ^"^- :;.^':y ^^I^Q ::':U^3 //!// IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.R(^No. ^ /2^8-o3 Abdul Karim S/o Late Shri Shaikh Ebrahim R/o Village Palo (Lalganj) Raibareli (U.P.) VERSUS 1. C. G. Infrostructure Development Cor. Through- Managing Director ,, Shastri Chauk, Raipur (C.G) 2. Divisional Manager Transport Dept. Raipur (C.G.) 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES_226 & 227 OFJXE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ""^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petjtioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (U N0.734/2009 Abdul Karim Versus C.G. Infrastructure Development Corporation and Another Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227of the Constitution of India Present:- Shri S. P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashok Vaishnav, counsel for the respondents. \y ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 30th ofJune, 2011) Heard on I.A.No.4, which is an application for urgent hearing. 2. Upon due consideration, the application is. allowed. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 04-10-2008(Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court, whereby the Industrial Court upheld the order dated 25-01-2008 passed by the Labour Court rejecting petitioner's application for restoration of his case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application before the Labour Court concerning dispute relating to implementation of V.R.S. scheme. He submits that when the case was listed before the Labour Court on 14-10-2004, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed stating the cause shown for non-appearance. However, the learned Court ^—•-.^ ..ff'r^ l ^•^y ^y y ^v r1-"^ 'v" v below rejected the application by adopting undue restricted approach. He submits that the Courts below have ignored that the sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for restoration, and therefore, liberal view ought to have been adopted rather than the pedantic approach, which has been taken by the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner to contest his case on merits before the Courts below. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has failed to explain satisfactorily as to why he could not appear before the Labour Court on 14-10-2004 and has also failed to explain as to why application for restoration was filed after about three years. He further submits that both the Courts below have considered this aspect and after considering the material on record, have specifically recorded that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for restoration; therefore, the instant petition needs to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner had filed an application before the Labour Court in the matter of dispute relating to V.R.S. scheme. On 14-10-2004, the case ofthe petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution, because on that date, the petitioner did not appear nor his counsel represented. An application for restoration was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court on 14-02- 2007. The application was filed along with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In his application and the affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner could not appear on 14-10-2004 as his mother was sick and he had informed this fact to his counsel and had gone to his home village. The petitioner has also stated in his application that the 9' counsel engaged by him, has stated that he should come as and when he will be called. In the application, it has been stated that the absenceon the date of hearing was not deliberate. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated that the petitioner did not know about the dismissal of the case and when he met his counsel on 13-02-2007 in a marriage, then he came to know that his case has been dismissed, thereafter, application for restoration has been filed. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court shows that the application of the petitioner for restoration has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not make any enquiry from his counsel for long time, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filingrestoration application is required to be rejected. The Industrial Court in appeal has also affirmed the view taken by the Labour Court by holding that the petitioner did not move any application for restoration promptly. It has also been recorded by the Industrial Court that the cause shown for non- appearanceis not bonafide. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons, which have been assigned by the LabourCourt for rejecting application for condonation of delay, were wholly perverse and ex facie illegal. The petitioner in his application for condonation of delay in filing restorationapplication had clearly stated that he was informed by his counsel that he has to come, as and when, he is informed, therefore, he did not make any attempt to contact his counsel. He came to know about the dismissal ofthe case on 13-02-2007, thereafter, he preferred an application for restoration. The Labour Court while rejecting petitioner's application stated that the petitioner is required to explain each ."»- • "^" i^iM. ^ ^ ' ;1:'"^ ^ $ and every day's delay. The cause shown by the petitioner in his application has not been properly appreciated. The learned Courts below ought to have appreciated that while considering application for condonation of delay and application for restoration of a case dismissed for want of prosecution, the Courts are required to adopt a liberal approach rather than closing the fate of litigant on technical grounds without any opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, l am of the view that the impugned orders of the Court below have caused serious miscarriage of justice. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 04-10-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court as well as order dated 14-10-2004 (Annexure P-2) and 25-01-2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court are hereby set aside. Though, the Labour Court has dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the Industrial Court has examined the merits of application for restoration instead of remanding the case for fresh consideration, the application for restoration is allowed and the petitioner's case before the Labour Court shall now be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. 12. In view of foregoing, the petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude TUMANE