1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6572 OF 2011 M/s.Rajesh Enterprises & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Shri.Ramruksha Yadav .. Respondent Mr.S.N.Deshpande with Ms.Swarna Munshi for the petitioners. Mr.Ravindra Nair with Mr.Rahul Oak for the Respondent. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 18th October, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.S.N.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Ravindra Nair, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 3. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned Judge of the 1st Labour Court, Thane in the Misc.Application (IDA) No.16 of 2005 in Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995 in Reference (IDA) No.36 of 1991. By that order the Labour Court dismissed the application made by the petitioners being the 2 Misc.Application (IDA) No.16 of 2005 for restoration of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995 and for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2002. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute under Section 10(1) (c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Reference was to the following effect:- “I, Shri Ramruksha Yadav should be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f.07.03.1989”. 5. By judgment and award dated 16.01.1995 the Labour Court answered the reference in the affirmative and set aside the termination of the Respondent w.e.f.07.03.1989 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the Respondent in service with continuity in service and full back-wages. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the award passed on 16.01.1995 was ex-parte award and therefore they made an application being Misc.Application No.15 of 1995 on 03.08.1995 for setting aside that award dated 16.01.1995. On 29.07.2002 the said Application was dismissed for want of prosecution. In the order the Labour Court recorded that the applicant-petitioner was 3 absent and none appeared on its behalf. No steps were taken in the matter and since the matter was of 1995 there was no reason to keep the application on file. Application was accordingly disposed of for want of prosecution. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that they received notice on 28.01.2005 and therefore they took out the Misc.Application (IDA) No.16 of 2005 on 02.05.2005 for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2002 and for restoration of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has dismissed the said application. It is against this order the petitioners have approached this Court. 8. In support of this petition, Mr.Deshpande submitted that the wife of Petitioner No.2 was hospitalized for a period from 1994 to 2001. He had engaged an Advocate to lookafter the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995. His brother Mangesh Nenwani received notice from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 28.01.2005. He visited office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and came to know about the disposal of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995 on 29.07.2002. He therefore submitted that this is a fit case for setting aside the order 4 dated 29.07.2002 and for restoration of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995. 9. In support of this petition, Mr.Deshpande relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others V/s.Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another, (2000) 9 SCC 94 and in particular Paragraph 11 thereof. In that case, the Apex Court has held that power to condone delay in approaching the Court is conferred upon the Courts with a view to doing substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the Legislature in the Limitation Act, is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. 10.On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order. 11.I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. Even accepting the case of the petitioners that the 2nd Petitioner’s wife was hospitalized the period is from February 1994 to March, 2001. Misc. Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995 was dismissed for non prosecution on 5 29.07.2002. However, there is no explanation given by the petitioners about her or her Advocate’s absence on 29.07.2002. The learned Labour Court considered this aspect in Paragraph 10 of the impugned order and came to the conclusion that no sufficient case is made out. I do not find that the Labour Court committed any error. 12.There is no dispute about the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment of State of Bihar (supra). The question that is posed before this Court is whether the petitioners have made out sufficient case. As noted earlier, the ex-parte award was made on 16.01.1995. The petitioners made application for setting aside that ex-parte award. However, that application itself was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.07.2002. The explanation offered by the petitioners is for a period from 1994 to 2001. However, no explanation is offered about the absence of the petitioners or their lawyer on 29.07.2002. 13.From the material on record it is evident that the petitioners were not prosecuting the proceedings diligently. They did not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court and award was passed on 16.01.1995. Though the petitioners filed 6 Misc.Application No.15 of 1995 on 03.08.1995 they did not take any steps in the matter. The petitioners were not present and even their Advocate did not appear on 29.07.2002. The learned Judge therefore dismissed the application for want of prosecution on 29.07.2002. Again no efforts were made by the petitioners to find out as to what was the progress of the said application and it is only on 02.05.2005 they filed Misc.Application (IDA) No.16 of 2005 for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2002 and for restoration of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.15 of 1995. Even the explanation offered by the petitioners is for the period between 1994 and 2001. However, there is no explanation of their absence on 29.07.2002. They did not make any efforts till filing of the Misc.Application (IDA) No.16 of 2005, which was filed on 02.05.2005. I do not find any case made out for interference. No interference is called for. Rule is therefore discharged. Petition fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)