HARI SINGH Vs. POOJA FORGING PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P-3) vide which the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Labour Court, Faridabad, and also against the order dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure P-6), dismissing the application for restoration. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner workman sought reference of industrial dispute and the same was referred by the appropriate authority. When the reference was pending decision before the learned Labour Court, Faridabad, on 26.7.2012, none appeared on behalf of the claimant-workman and the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was moved on the same day seeking restoration of the case, explaining reasons for bonafide absence. However, the expiration given on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Labour Court and the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure P-6). Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and having been duly served, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 -Management.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P-3) as well as the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Labour Court, Faridabad, were, on the face of it, patently illegal. The absence on the part of the petitioner in pre-lunch session on 26.7.2012, had been duly explained giving bonafide reasons by way of an application for restoration moved on the same day. However, the learned Labour Court has miserably failed to appreciate the bonafide reasons for non appearance, while passing the impugned order, thereby rejecting the application for restoration. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition.