1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2846 OF 2008 Yashwantrao Attigre Sahakari Pani Puravatha Sanstha Maryadit. ...Petitioner. Vs. Madhukar Vithu Mithari. ...Respondent. .... Ms. Priyanka Patil for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 24, 2008. P.C.: In the considered exercise of discretion vested in the Labour Court, the application for restoration of a reference which was dismissed in default on 2nd September 2004 has been allowed. The Labour Court has found that on 4th August 2004, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman filed a 'No instruction' purshis without intimating this fact to the Respondent. The application for restoration was filed within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the award and was within limitation. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner urged that for six years the Respondent had not taken any 2 steps to pursue the proceedings diligently and the Labour Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the reference in default. The principal reason which has weighed with the Labour Court is that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman did not intimate the fact of filing a 'no instruction' purshis to the Respondent. No case for interference is made out. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has desired the Court to record that the Petitioner is willing to reinstate the Respondent though without back wages. This aspect of the matter can be considered by the Labour Court when the reference is taken up for hearing. The petition is dismissed. .......