IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

W.P.(L) No. 641 of 2022

M/s Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited (TVNL)

.... .. ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Jharkhand & Ors.

.. ... ... Respondents

...........

CORAM

:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

For the Petitioner

: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate

Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate

Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate

For the respondent-State

: Mr. Deepankar, AC to A.G.

For the respondent nos.2-5

: Mr. Anjani Kumar Pandey, in-person

…...

03/ 20.07.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. Jasvindar

Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that in the 4^th line

order dated 08.06.2022 it has wrongly been typed as “restored without giving

opportunity to the petitioner” which is apparent error of record, as the show-

cause of the petitioner has already been brought on record as Annexure-3 to

the writ petition and the same has also been considered in the impugned order,

as such, that part of the order with regard to “restored without giving

opportunity to the petitioner” may be deleted.

Accordingly the words “restored without giving opportunity to the

petitioner” is deleted from the 4^th line of order dated 08.06.2022.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted, that petitioner- M/s Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited (TVNL) has

preferred this writ petition against the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure- 5),

passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Misc. Case

No.25 of 2021 (R), whereby and whereunder, Original Case No. PW No.04 of

2015, which was dismissed for default at the advanced stage of argument on

13.09.2017 has been restored vide order dated 25.01.2022 on erroneous

ground.

Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that

Original Case No. PW No.04/2015 was filed on 19.11.2015 and after

appearance of the opposite party- M/s Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, the

evidence of both the parties were recorded and the evidence was closed on

01.03.2017. Thereafter, the case was fixed for argument on 05.04.2017,

24.04.2017, 26.04.2017 and 12.05.2017.

Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that the

workmen have filed an application on 12.05.2017 for summoning Ram Awtar

-2-

Sahu (opposite party) and Bhola Singh (official of O.P.) for adducing the

evidences, but subsequent to that, application has not been pressed by the

workmen. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 27.06.2017, but at that time too the

workmen were absent. Thereafter the case was fixed on 14.07.2017,

08.08.2017, 29.08.2017 and 13.09.2017, but on those dates also the workmen

were not present, therefore, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

workmen have filed an application before the Presiding Officer, Labour court,

Ranchi, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition,

whereby it is submitted, that they have filed their attendance, but at the time of

call, they could not appear and the case was dismissed, but the court below

while restoring the application has erroneously considered that the restoration

application was not filed within one month from the date of order of dismissal

and prayer has been made to condone the delay on the ground of ignorance of

the law to the applicants as well as in view of the situation of COVID -19

pandemic.

Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that correct

fact has not been recorded in the impugned order, if the case was dismissed on

13.09.2017 and restoration application was not filed within stipulated period of

30 days, delay could have been condoned, but the same has not been condoned

due to COVID- 19 pandemic, which started from 20.03.2020, as such,

impugned order is bad in law.

Mr. An