1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6064 OF 1996 CIMCO BIRLA LIMITED ... Applicants v/s ROWENA LEWIS ... Respondent Rita K. Joshi for the applicants. Mr.S.C.Naidu with Mr.Santosh Shetty i/by Mr.Aditya Chiitale for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 23RD JUNE, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed for restoring the writ petition which was dismissed on 2.4.2004. According to the applicants they were not aware that the writ petition was dismissed in April, 2004 and, therefore, they had not taken any steps to have the matter restored. The applicants contend that, for the first time, they became aware of the dismissal of the writ petition only in the year 2006. This was probably because an order was passed on 5.10.2006 by Chandrachud, J. in Writ Petition No. 2598 of 2005 with Writ 2 Petition No.296 of 2006. The learned Judge had, while disposing of the two petitions observed, “However, it is now common ground for the writ proceedings filed by the employer came to be dismissed in default by this Court on 2.4.2004.” Therefore, in any event, the applicants were aware that Writ Petition No. 6064 of 1996 had been dismissed in the year 2004. Yet the applicants did nothing to have the writ petition restored. The reasons mentioned in the civil application for not taking immediate action are (i) the applicants did not expect the respondent to undertake any further legal proceedings after she withdrew her complaint; (2) no staff was available in Mumbai after the Company was declared a sick industry; (3) critical financial condition; and (4) closure of the Mumbai Division. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that besides the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners were preoccupied with several litigations filed by the workman. 2. The reasons in my opinion, are not sufficient to set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petition. The applicant cannot shirk their responsibility of ensuring that a proceeding that they have filed in Court is seen through to its end, on their so called expectations about the conduct of the workman. The non-availability of staff in Mumbai or their 3 critical financial condition cannot absolve the petitioners from their responsibility in the matter. In any case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners did not have staff or that they were in financial doldrums. 3. The issue regarding the closure of the establishment in Mumbai has been dealt with in Writ Petition No.3135 of 2009 filed by the applicants. The learned Single Judge (Kanade, J.) while disposing of this writ petition has concluded that the plea of closure of the undertaking was not raised by the petitioners in that case, who are the applicants here, at the first instance when the written statement was filed before the Labour Court in 1999. This order has been confirmed by the Division Bench in the L.P.A. filed by the applicants. This judgment was delivered on 15.6.2009. 4. Even assuming what the applicants have stated is correct that the workman had filed several litigations against the Company and that they have been declared a sick company, in my view, there is no need to restore the writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, sufficient grounds have not been mentioned in the civil application to show the steps taken by the applicants to have the matter restored from the year 2004 when the writ petition was dismissed or 4 in any event from the year 2006 when the other two writ petitions were dismissed by this Court. Merely because the applicants were defending various litigations they cannot be absolved from their responsibility of having the petition restored within a reasonable time. In my opinion, the delay of three years for having the petition restored is inordinately long. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & anr. v/s Mst.Katiji & ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, does not carry the case of the applicants any further as they have not made out sufficient and reasonable grounds for restoring the petition. 5. Secondly, the award has already been implemented. The workman has been reinstated and she has been paid back wages which according to the applicant are due and payable. The workman has raised the dispute about the calculations. That dispute will obviously be considered in the proceedings that she has filed for correcting the calculations. 6. In my opinion, therefore, no case for restoration has been made out. 7. Civil application dismissed. ..... 5 6