Ignorance of a proceeding taken in the court cannot be considered a ground for condoning the delay in filing a restoration application. The reasonings for affirming the award of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal were found unassailable.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant misc. application has been filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking restoration of D.B. Civil Special appeal (Writ) No.478/2013 which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on account of the fact that no one appeared to argue the case on behalf of the State on 12.05.2016 and also on 16.05.2016 on which date, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. The restoration application is delayed by 761 days. The explanation, which has been offered in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act for the gross delay in filing of the restoration application, is that the additional advocate General concerned was not aware regarding the passing of the order dated 16.05.2016 and thus, the restoration application could not be filed in time. We are of the firm view that this plea is totally frivolous and unacceptable. Ignorance of a proceeding taken in the Court can never be considered to be a ground for condoning the delay.

3. Otherwise also, we have examined the matter on merits.

4. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jodhpur allowed the application of the respondent Smt. Mamta Sharma by award dated 15.12.2011 and set aside her retrenchment from service as being contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes act. a direction was given to reinstate her services with 30% back-wages. The said order of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal was challenged by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6086/2012 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2012 with the following observations:

'I have considered the award impugned. From perusal whereof it reveals that as a matter of fact, no decision was taken by the Gram Sabha, the authority competent to terminate the respondent-workman. It is relevant to note that as per the evidence available on record, Supervisor Mrs. asha Solanki instructed the workman to carry edible material from one station to another. The findings arrived by the Labour Court, as such, are based on adequate appreciation of the evidence available. Having considered the same, I do not find any just reason to interfere with the award impugned while exercising the powers under articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India.'

5. We are of the firm view that the reasonings, which have been assigned by the learned Single Bench for affirming the award of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, are unassailable. Thus, the appeal itself is devoid of merit and no useful purpose would beserved by restoring the same in this highly belated restoration application. Hence, the same is dismissed.