IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24133 of 2007 Between: K.Madhusudan S/o.K.Venkataswamy R/o.1-6-105, Varidayaala kollahpur Mandal Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Management of F.G.P.Ltd., (now known as VITROTEX SAINTGOBIN rep.by its Works Manager, Thimmapur village,Palamkul (PO) Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 2 The Sr.Manager (Works), The Management of F.G.P.Ltd (now known as VITROTEX SAIMTGOBIN, rep.by its Works Manager, Thimmapur village Palamkul Post, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 3 The Management of VITROTEX SAINTGOBIN Ltd (Now known as OCV), Reinforcemnt , Thimmapur village Palamkul Post, Kothur Mandal Mahabubnagar District 4 Labour Court-III, Chandravihar Building, M.J.Road Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and after calling for the records in IA.No.106 of 2006 in ID.No.48 of 2005 dated 2.8.2007 setting aside the same and consequently restore the IA.No.106 of 2006 in ID.No.48 of 2005 on the file of 4th respondent in the interest of justice or else the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed in M/s F.G.P. Limited, Timmapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. His services were terminated on 08.10.1999. Aggrieved thereby, he raised an industrial dispute, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The same was taken up as I.D.No.48 of 2005. The petitioner had to file some interlocutory applications to implead the agency, which had assumed the management of the employer. On 27.10.2006, the I.D., was dismissed for default. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.106 of 2006, with a prayer to restore the I.D. The Labour Court dismissed the I.A., on 02.08.2007. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. It is no doubt true that there were some lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the I.D. part of it is attributable to the uncertainty that prevailed, on account of the purchase of units by a different agency. Soon after the I.D. was dismissed for default, the petitioner filed the application to restore the same. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court discloses that hyper-technical view was taken, and it was proceeded as though the proceedings before it, are civil suits. It must not be forgotten that the Labour Courts are constituted for resolution of the disputes and to extend the relief wherever permissible to the workmen. Small lapses, that too, procedural in nature, should not come in the way of the Labour Court to go into the merits of the matter. Necessary indulgence needs to be shown to ensure that the industrial dispute is disposed of on merits. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the order under challenge is set aside. I.D.No.48 of 2005 shall stand restored to file, and the Labour Court shall proceed with the determination of the I.D., on merits, after giving opportunity to the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.12.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ