MRS. SURINDRA DEVI Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP(M) No. 115/2016 & LPA No. 87/2016.

(2.) It is apt to record herein that the applicants/appellants have not mentioned what steps they have taken right from the passing of the impugned judgment till the filing of the limitation application. The limitation application is bereft of reasons and the applicants have not shown cause for one day, not to speak of 298 days, i.e, almost a year. Only on this count, the limitation petition merits to be dismissed. However, we have gone through the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is well reasoned, needs no interference, as the rights and interests of a workman are involved.

(3.) Law leans in favour of the labourers, unless it is shown that the Writ Court has fallen in an error.