WPMS/2133/2007
2022 Latest Caselaw 3881 UK

SL.          Office Notes,
No.   Date      reports,
               orders or                    COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
             proceedings
             or directions
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             MCC No. 1217/2017 (For Restoration Application)
                             CLMA No. 15403/2017 (For Delay Condonation Application in Restoration)
                             In
                             WPMS No. 2133 of 2007
                             Hon'ble S.K. Mishra, J.

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This is an application for recalling of the order passed on 10.04.2017, whereby, the present writ petition was dismissed in default, and for restoration of the aforesaid writ petition, the restoration application has been filed on 24.11.2017 along with the application for condonation of delay of 197 days in preferring the restoration application.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocated was engaged to argue the case; he resides in Bareilly; in the meantime, he has been designated as a senior advocate and is practicing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court; hence, when the case was listed on 10.04.2017 learned counsel Mr. R.K. Raizada could not be aware of the listing of the case and, hence, none appeared for the petitioner, resulting into dismissal of the writ petition in default.

On 05.11.2017, wife of the respondent no. 1 moved an application for the benefits of the judgment passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, which was assailed in the application. The petitioner came to know about the fact that the respondent no. 1 has died and the case was also dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petition is pending.

Admittedly, on 05.11.2017 when wife of the deceased/respondent no. 1 filed an application for the benefits of the judgment of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the petitioner came to know about the death of the retired employee i.e. respondent no. 1, as yet no application for substitution has been filed.

Though, learned senior counsel Mr. T.A. Khan appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed such an application. The application is not on record, in fact, there is a report of the Registry that substitution application has not been filed.

In that view of the matter, restoration application stands abated.

(S.K. Mishra, J.) 02.12.2022 (Grant urgent certified copy as per Rules) Pooja