((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.59 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1497 OF 2005 M/s.Milestone (Franki Stall) Petitioner versus Mathew D’Souza and another Respondent Dinesh Kumar Shukla for petitioner. Mrs.B.P.Jakhade for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 14th March 2008 PC : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents on record. I am in agreement with the stand taken by respondent no.1 that the attempt of the petitioner seems to be to protract the proceedings for one reason or the other. That position emerges from the fact referred to by my predecessor while dismissing the main writ petition for default on 2nd April 2007. It has been noted that on four dates neither the petitioner nor his counsel remained present. The order of reinstatement in favour of respondent no.1 has been passed by the Labour ((-2-)) MST Court as back as on 30th April 2003 but could not be effectuated on account of pendency of present writ petition since 2005 and in particular ad-interim order passed on 6th June 2005. Besides, present motion has been filed only in January 2008. No tangible explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the petitioner to immediately get the petition restored after 2nd April 2007. 2. Taking over all view of the matter, I am more than convinced that no indulgence should be shown to such litigant. However, by way of one last opportunity, the petition is restored to the file to its original number on condition that the petitioner shall pay costs to the respondent no.1 quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only) within two weeks from today and produce acknowledgement of payment of such amount in the registry within that time, failing which the office to proceed on the assumption that the motion has been dismissed without further reference to the Court. 3. In the event the petitioner pays the amount quantified as aforesaid within the specified time to respondent no.1, the main writ petition which ((-3-)) MST is restored under this order, shall be listed from the week commencing from 7th April 2008 for hearing. It is made clear that restoration of writ petition is not restoration of interim relief which was granted on 6th June 2005 ex-parte under this order. The ad-interim relief which was granted on 6th June 2005 stood vacated after the order was passed on 2nd April 2007. That position is not restored under this order. In other words, besides paying costs, the petitioner will have to reinstate the respondent no.1 in terms of the order of Labour Court before next date of hearing, provided, respondent no.1 has not attained age of superannuation. Motion disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)