http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

                                                            1

                                               NON REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19550 of 2007

State of Rajasthan                                ...Petitioner

Versus

Shankar Lal                                     ...Respondent

                         ORDER

1.   This Special Leave Petition is directed against an order

    passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of

    Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

    rejecting the application for restoration filed at the

    instance of the petitioner on the ground that the

    petitioner had failed to show any sufficient cause for

    condoning the delay in filing the writ appeal.

2.   The    respondent   raised   a   dispute   regarding     his

    termination before a Conciliation Officer at Rajasthan by

    application dated 13th of September, 1998. The dispute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

                                                           2

    was referred to the Labour Court for consideration. The

    Labour Court, by its order dated 26th of June, 2000,

    directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 but not

    granted back wages from 30th of May, 1983 to 13th of

    September, 1993, but granted 30% back wages from 13th

    of September, 1993.

3.   Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the

    petitioner filed a writ petition before the Division Bench

    of the High Court of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of

    the High Court, by an order dated 18th of October, 2004,

    directed the petitioner to remove the defects in filing the

    appeal within one week from that date, failing which, the

    appeal shall stand dismissed.     Admittedly, the defects

    were not removed by the petitioner and accordingly, the

    special appeal stood dismissed.

4.   For restoration of the writ appeal, the application was

    filed by the petitioner along with an application for

    condonation of delay and the High Court, by the

    impugned order, rejected the same.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

                                                                3

5.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

    examined the impugned order as well as the application

    for restoration and the cause shown by the petitioner for

    not complying with the directions of the High Court,

    which directed him to remove the defects indicated in the

    order   dated    18th   of   October,   2004   and   also   the

    application for condonation of delay in filing the same.

6.   Considering the fact that the poor workman, for not fault

    of his, could not get the fruit of the contested award

    passed in his favour and, in our view, the reasons given

    for restoration of the appeal were not satisfactory and

    considering the findings made in the impugned order

    that the State-appellant had unnecessary dragged the

    matter, we are of the view that the impugned order,

    holding   that   no     sufficient   cause   was   shown    for

    restoration of the appeal, cannot be disturbed and

    therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

    same.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                                                                   4

7.   Accordingly, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

    There will be no order as to costs.

                                           .........................J.                                            [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;                                 .........................J. April 15, 2009.                            [H.L.Dattu ]