Ashok Bhushan and Vineet Saran, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chand Kohli, who has appeared in person on behalf of respondent No. 2. Earlier the case was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to get the matter settled outside the Court. However, when the case was taken up today, the settlement between the parties is not seen. In view of the aforesaid, we have proceeded to decide the writ petition on merit.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) by which order the Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has rejected the application of the petitioner for restoring the F.A.F.O. which was dismissed on 4th July, 1996. The F.A.F.O. was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.4.1983 by which order the arbitration award awarding a sum of Rs. 79,000 to the respondent was made Rule of the Court. When the F.A.F.O. was called on several occasion, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's counsel appeared hence the Court dismissed the appeal. An application was filed for restoration of the appeal alongwith the affidavit of Sri A. P. Trivedi, Supervisor. The objection was filed to the said restoration application. The Court heard the parties and has dismissed the application. The Court did not believe the cause shown by the petitioner for non-appearance on 4th July, 1996. It was noticed by the Court that 4th July, 1996 was the date fixed on the request made by the petitioner and the appeal which was pending for 13 years was to be heard finally on 4th July, 1996. Neither the petitioner appeared nor his counsel appeared although respondent and his counsel were present. The explanation given by the petitioner was that there was workers' agitation in the establishment due to which, no one could come to the Court and the file of the case was with the Supervisor. The Court disbelieved the case set up by the petitioner and has observed that no senior officer has filed any affidavit with regard to extent of the workers' agitation and it has not even stated that there has been any violence resorted by the workers in the establishment. The Court also did not believe that there was no facility of telephone and the case file was not with the counsel. The Court observed that in a case where appeal was pending for last 13 years and adjourned for 4th July, 1996 on the request of the petitioner, the file of the case be not with the counsel, is not believable. Against the order dismissing the restoration application, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 26th November, 1996 which remained pending in this Court for another 13 years. By an interim order passed on 16.12.1996, the respondent was restrained from taking the money which has been deposited in the Court in pursuance of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the court below has committed error in rejecting the restoration application. The Court ought to have put some conditions for restoration of the appeal. He submits that sufficient cause was shown. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. P. Srivastava v. R. K. Raizada and others, (2000) 3 SCC 54 : 2000 (2) AWC 1294 (SC).
(3.) WE have considered the submissions and perused the record. The appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 15.11.1996 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner refusing to recall the order dated 4th July, 1996. The following are the reasons which have been given in the impugned order for rejecting the application : (1) The appeal which earlier fixed for 2nd July, 1996 for hearing, was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner to 4th July, 1996 for hearing ; (2) The appeal is 13 years old appeal and serious efforts were required to be taken by the appellant for hearing of the appeal but on that date no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The H.A.L. is a reputed and a big establishment but with regard to labour unrest, no affidavit of any Senior Executive Officer was filed and affidavit of only a subordinate employee has been filed who is not expected to assess the nature and seriousness of labour unrest ; (3) It is not acceptable that no employee or officer could contact his counsel whereas there is no mention that workers resorted to rampage or violence ; (4) It is not acceptable that telephone services had become zero ; (5) The fact that file of the counsel went with Sri A. P. Trivedi alongwith other documents cannot be believed. No satisfactory reasons have been given as to why the counsel for the appellant in such important and old case could not appear on 4th July, 1996 ; and (6) The party who is interested in delaying the disposal of a case absents itself to get the case dismissed in default and subsequently efforts are made to get it restored by which process he gets opportunity to delay the matter and in the present case this appears to be reason for non-appearance.;