Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14728 (GAU)

BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

MC/28/2025 · 2025-07-18

Michael Zothankhuma

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086002025 2025:GAU-AS:9298 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MC/28/2025 BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION BOKAJAN P.O. BOKAJAN DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG PIN 782490 BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SHRI PRATAP BORAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SON OF LATE PURNA CHANDRA BORA RESIDENT OF BOARDING ROAD WARD NO. 6 P.O. AND P.S. SIVASAGAR 785640 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI 3:MANAGEMENT OF BOKAJAN CEMENT FACTORY A UNIT OF CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER BOKAJAN DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : MR S R A NASER Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 19-07-2025 Mr. A Chetry, learned counsel for the applicant submits that WP(C) 6958/2016 had been dismissed for non-prosecution, vide order dated 25.10.2024 due to the petitioner/applicant not being represented on the said date. He submits that the reason for non-representation of the petitioner/applicant was due to the fact that the petitioner’s/applicant’s counsel had expired. He accordingly submits that the petitioner/applicant came to know about the said fact only at a later stage and had thus filed this application for recalling of the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 6958/2016 and to restore the case record to file. 2. Mr. K Gogoi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits that he has got no objection to the said prayer. 3. In view of the reasons given by the applicant’s/petitioner’s counsel for non-representation of the petitioner on 25.10.2024, this Court is of the view that the writ petition should be restored to file. 4. Accordingly, the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in WP(C) 6958/2016 is hereby recalled. Page No.# 3/3 5. M.C. is disposed of accordingly. 6. Registry to list WP(C) 6958/2016 after a week. JUDGE Comparing Assistant