KESHOD MUNICIPALITY Vs. MULUBHAI JIVA GARCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate for the parties.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the workmen seriously contended that the delay itself is not required to be condoned and main matter be required to be rejected as no ground for condonation is made out and pendency of this application and proceedings are treated as said order for not doing the needful in favour of the workmen, which the Municipality is supposed to do as per the order passed by this Court.

(3.) The Court also noted from the order-sheet that on 23rd August, 2013 when the matter was listed, learned advocate for the applicant has remained present and it was required to be adjourned to 10th September, 2013 and again on 10th September, 2013 the matter was required to be adjourned, as the Court had to record that the learned advocate for the applicant had not remained present and it was adjourned to 16th September, 2013.