State Of Rajasthan vs Shankar Lal

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19550 of 2007

State of Rajasthan ...Petitioner

Versus

Shankar Lal ...Respondent

ORDER

1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against an order

passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

rejecting the application for restoration filed at the

instance of the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner had failed to show any sufficient cause for

condoning the delay in filing the writ appeal.

2. The respondent raised a dispute regarding his

termination before a Conciliation Officer at Rajasthan by

application dated 13th of September, 1998. The dispute 2

was referred to the Labour Court for consideration. The

Labour Court, by its order dated 26th of June, 2000,

directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 but not

granted back wages from 30th of May, 1983 to 13th of

September, 1993, but granted 30% back wages from 13th

of September, 1993.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the

petitioner filed a writ petition before the Division Bench

of the High Court of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of

the High Court, by an order dated 18th of October, 2004,

directed the petitioner to remove the defects in filing the

appeal within one week from that date, failing which, the

appeal shall stand dismissed. Admittedly, the defects

were not removed by the petitioner and accordingly, the

special appeal stood dismissed.

4. For restoration of the writ appeal, the application was

filed by the petitioner along with an application for

condonation of delay and the High Court, by the

impugned order, rejected the same.

3

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

examined the impugned order as well as the application

for restoration and the cause shown by the petitioner for

not complying with the directions of the High Court,

which directed him to remove the defects indicated in the

order dated 18th of October, 2004 and also the

application for condonation of delay in filing the same.

6. Considering the fact that the poor workman, for not fault

of his, could not get the fruit of the contested award

passed in his favour and, in our view, the reasons given

for restoration of the appeal were not satisfactory and

considering the findings made in the impugned order

that the State-appellant had unnecessary dragged the

matter, we are of the view that the impugned order,

holding that no sufficient cause was shown for

restoration of the appeal, cannot be disturbed and

therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

same.

4

7. Accordingly, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

.........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .........................J. April 15, 2009. [H.L.Dattu ]