1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.377 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.965 OF 2005 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. ONGC General Kamgar Sanghatana and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. G.D. Talreja for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Kulkarni i/b S.K. Chopda for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 10th November, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petition was adjourned sine die on 14th June, 2006 in view of the pendency of certain proceedings before the Supreme Court arising out of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in MRF Limited, Goa v. Goa MRF Employees Union1. Subsequently on 27th August, 2008 this Court had directed that the matter should be placed after six months since the proceedings before the Supreme 1 2003 II CLR 985. 2 Court were still pending. On 17th June, 2009 the Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution since counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner expressed his inability to proceed with the hearing. 2. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support it has been stated that on 17th June, 2009 the advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was not in a position to read without his spectacles, which had broken, “because of his high eye sight number”. It has been stated that the advocate instructed his associate advocate to appear in the matter for an adjournment on the same ground on which the Petition had been adjourned earlier viz. the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in MRF’s case. The Court, however, declined to grant an adjournment and the learned advocate who had been briefed was unable to argue the case. 3. The prayer is for restoration of the Petition. In fairness counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent which is the contesting party states that he is not opposing the grant of relief but 3 the entire petition may be disposed of since the proceedings in the reference have substantially proceeded before the Industrial Tribunal. Counsel appearing for the original Petitioner states that he would have to consult his clients on whether the entire petition can be disposed of at this stage and he is not able to make such a statement at the present point of time. 4. In view of the fact that the advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was in a personal difficulty on 17th June, 2009 as set out in paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support and since the application for restoration has not been opposed, the interests of justice would warrant the restoration of the Petition. Accordingly, the order dated 17th June, 2009 is recalled and the Petition is restored to the file. The Motion is accordingly disposed of. The Writ Petition to be placed on Board on 24th November, 2009. *****