IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Civil Writ Petition (M/S) No. 261 of 2006 (Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) M/s Acme Electrical and Industrial Company. 23-D , Gautam Buddha Marg, Lucknow, through its Manager Sri Pradeep Kumar Goyal, aged about 40 years, S/O Sri J.G.Goyal, R/o 109 /3 Model House, Lucknow. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Deputy Labour Commissioner ( Head Office) Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Sri D.Lal, Son not known presently working as Deputy Labour Commissioner (Head Office) Kumaon Region Haldwani and acting as Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation Haldwani Region, Haldwani. 3. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital and Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation, Haldwani Region, Haldwani. 4. Sri Devi Lal Shilpkar, S/O Sri Prem Ram, Resident of Kohli Colony, Kusumkhera, Haldwani, Nainital. 5. Smt. Durga Devi, Wife of Sri Devi Lal Shilpkar, Resident of Kohli Colony, Kusumkhera, Haldwani, Nainital. … Respondents. Sri Kirti Kar Tirpathi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.B.Tewari, Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 3. Sri Ajay Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Dated March 24, 2006. PC: (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard learned counsel. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 in WCA Case No. 50 of 2001 Devi Lal Vs. M/s Acme Electrical and Industrial Company Lucknow by which the learned Workman Compensation 2 Commissioner dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner by an unreasoned order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that no reason has been assigned by the Workman Compensation Commissioner and it is one line order. It has been mentioned that the argument of the parties on restoration application was heard and the restoration application is dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4-wrokman has no objection in restoration of the claim petition against the petitioner, if the claim petition is decided by the Workman Compensation Commissioner-respondent no.2 afresh within a stipulated period. The learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that he will co-operate in the proceedings and he will not further delay the proceedings before the Workman Compensation Commissioner in deciding the claim petition. The impugned order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside and the claim petition WCA No. 50 of 2001, Devi Lal Vs. M/s Acme Electrical and Industrial Company, Lucknow is restored to its original number. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner is directed to decide the claim petition afresh positively within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP