(1.) The appellants are just not interested in prosecuting the appeal nor the application which seeks restoration of the appeal. Laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 06.11.2013 the appeal was filed with a delay of 838 days. Two defects were notified by the Registry on 13.05.2016 which were not removed till when on 10.08.2016 a per-emptory order was passed that if within 10 days the defects are not removed the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Notwithstanding 10 days' time lapsing on 21.08.2016 the Registry granted time for defects to be notified till 08.02.2017. Till said date the defects were not removed and thus in terms of the per-emptory order dated 10.08.2016 the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) consigned the appeal to the record room treating the same as having been dismissed.
(2.) Above captioned restoration application was filed which was barred by 10 days. No application for delay to be condoned was filed in spite of the Registry informing on 05.07.2017 that the Restoration application is barred by limitation. Till date the defects have not been removed nor application has been filed for seeking delay to be condoned in seeking restoration of the appeal.
(3.) The impugned order was passed in the absence of any representation from the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The appellants were the writ petitioners and had challenged an award dated 25.02.2003. Reference made of the industrial dispute was whether the workmen who had raised the industrial dispute were entitled to wages in the regular pay scale. The evidence led before the Labour Court was that the appointment of the workman was after following the process of law provided by the Rajasthan Class-IV Service Rules, 1963. The names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It was not a case where the appointment was a back-door appointment. The Labour Court returned a finding that it was a case of unfair practice by not paying salary to the workman in the regular pay scale.