J U D G M E N T

CM.APPL. 50045-46/2025 (For condonation of delay of 365 days in filing restoration application along with application seeking restoration)

1. The present application is filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of W.P.(C) No. 23585/2005 (hereinafter, “the captioned writ petition”), which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order

dated 27.05.2024. Along with restoration application, the petitioner has also filed an application being CM No. 50046/2005, seeking condonation of 395 days’ delay in filing the same.

2. The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner assailing the ex parte Award dated 15.09.2005 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, granting reinstatement to the respondent-workman along with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. The captioned Writ Petition was initially dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner department succeeded in having the writ petition restored to its original number vide Order dated 01.11.2011, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the respondent-workman.

4. Subsequently, owing to the continued non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner department, the matter was once again dismissed in default vide order dated 13.03.2013. The court also took note of the petitioner-department’s callous approach in the conduct of the proceedings. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below-

“There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite pass-over.

In the first call as well, none appeared for the

petitioner. Even earlier the writ petition had been dismissed in default on 13.12.2010. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter with any seriousness.

Dismissed in default.

No application for restoration of the writ petition shall be entertained unless accompanied by proof of deposit of Costs of Rs. 15,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Account.”

5. Thereafter, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/-, the petitioner secured restoration of the captioned writ petition to its original number vide Order dated 29.10.2014. By the same order, the writ petition was made ‘Rule’.

6. The matter accordingly came to be listed before Court on 16.01.2024. On that date, court notice was issued to the parties, returnable for the date fixed, and the matter was listed in the category of ‘Regular Matters’ for final hearing, considering that it had been pending since 2005. The relevant portion is reproduced herein below-

“No one appeared on behalf of the parties.

Issue Court notice to the parties, returnable on 11th March, 2024.

List the matter in the category of “Regular Matters”.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing as the matter is pending since 2005.”

7. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 11.03.2024, on which date it was simply adjourned to a subsequent date, as none appeared on behalf of the parties and no adverse orders were passed. Pursuant to that, the matter was again listed before this court on 27.05.2024, when an order of dismissal in default came to be passed for the third time, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with the following observations.

“None appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called. None appeared on 11th March, 2024 and 16th January, 2024. It seems that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the matter any further.

The petition is thus dismissed for non-prosecution.”

8. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner has moved the present application seeking restoration of the writ petition along with an application seeking condonation of 395 days delay in filing the same.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the captioned writ petition was made ‘Rule’ vide Order dated 29.10.2014 and was

thereafter listed for the first time on 16.01.2024. In the intervening period, however, the erstwhile counsel representing the petitioner-department was discontinued from its panel. Owing