IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23748 of 2008(B)
1. B. VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
2. V. USHA,
3. P. CHITHARANJAN,
4. N. REMANI,
5. T.S. LATHIKA,
Vs
1. K. CHAKRAPANI, SLESMAN,
... Respondent
2. M.PADMALAL, SALESMAN,
3. R. VASANTHAN, SALESMAN, T.S. NO.20,
4. N. SIVADASAN, SALESMAN, T.S. NO.20,
5. K.K.CHANDRAN, TAPPER, T.S. NO.25,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 23748 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 7th August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners challenge Ext. P1 ex parte order of the Labour
Court, Kollam in C.P.No.91/2000 and Ext. P4 order, whereby the
petitioners’ application for setting aside the ex party order and the
petition to condone the delay of 1265 days in filing the same were
also dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not present
continuously for hearing of the petitions. According to the petitioners,
who were opposite parties in the claim petition and the petitioners in
the application to set aside the ex parte order, their advocate did not
inform them about the dates of posting in time. From Ext. P4 order, I
find that the applications for setting aside the ex parte order and the
petition to condone the delay were posted for evidence several times
and ultimately it was ordered that no further time would be granted
to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioners did not appear
on the date of hearing. In such circumstances, I do not think that the
petitioners, who are guilty of inordinate delay and laches at every
stage of the proceedings before the Labour Court, are entitled to any
more indulgence either at the hands of the Labour Court or this
Court .
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.
W.P.C. No. -: 2 :-