DHUPLAL MAHTO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25.4.2003, the L.P.A. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution. The restoration application by means of this MJC has been made by the appellant. There is delay of almost three years in making an application for restoration. For condonation thereof I.A. No. 4984 of 2006 has been made.

(2.) IN the application for condonation of delay as well as the restoration application, it is stated that the counsel for the appellant was of the impression that L.P.A filed by the appellant was pending. On 6.11.2006 when the Letters Patent Appeals of the years 1996 and 1997 were listed for hearing and the L.P.A. preferred by the appellant was not shown on board, the status of the appeal was found from the office and at that time he came to know that L.P.A. has already been dismissed for non -prosecution on 25th April, 2003. Although the notice has been served on the respondent no. 2 (contesting respondent) he has not chosen to appear. Thus, the aforesaid ground set up by the applicant remains untraversed and undenied.

(3.) FOR the stated reason, we are satisfied that the counsel for the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in appearing before this court on 25.4.2003 when the appeal was called out for hearing and dismissed for non - prosecution. This ground explains the delay as well.