[2025:RJ-JP:25999] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10339/2025 Satish Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Devi Sahai Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Plot Number 25, Barkat Nagar, Phoolchand Ji Ka Bagh, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur ----Claimant/Applicant/Petitioner Versus The Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., “Parijatak” New Colony, Panch Batti, Jaipur At Present The Fingrowth (Multi State) Co- Operative Bank Limited Through Managing Director ----Defendant/Non-Applicant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 14/07/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Labour Court-First, Jaipur (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) whereby, the restoration application No.17/2024 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”) came to be dismissed in default by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 07.07.2008. Thereafter, he filed the restoration application which also came to be dismissed in default on 01.02.2012. Thereafter, he filed the instant restoration application for setting aside the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:25999] (2 of 3) [CW-10339/2025] 01.02.2012 and to restore the application. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order impugned dated 09.05.2025. Assailing the order impugned, the only contention advanced by the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of Para No.1 of the para-wise reply filed by the respondent-Bank to the application filed by him under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947, is that since, the same gave him an apprehension that his services would be terminated, he did not attend the proceeding. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 be quashed and set aside and either the restoration application or the application filed by him under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947 be restored. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the restoration application, learned Labour Court has held that the application filed by petitioner on 06.06.2000 was dismissed on 07.07.2008 for want of prosecution and the restoration application filed by him was also dismissed for the same reason on 01.02.2012. It was observed that the main contention raised in the instant application was that his advocate assured him to take care of the case but, neither name of the counsel was disclosed nor, it was reflected as to when he contacted his counsel. The learned Labour Court also held that after dismissal of the restoration application way back on 01.02.2012, the instant application was filed in the year 2024, i.e., with unexplained inordinate delay of about 12 years. It was further held that no reason is furnished in the restoration [2025:RJ-JP:25999] (3 of 3) [CW-10339/2025] application as to why the applicant did not contact his counsel for the entire intervening period. This Court has gone through the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court as also the material on record. There is not a whisper of averment in the restoration application with regard to his apprehension of termination of his services on the basis of reply filed by the respondent-Bank to the application filed by him under Section 33 C (2) of the Act of 1947, as canvassed before this Court. Moreover, this Court does not find any such averment in the Para No.1 of the para-wise reply so as to lead any such apprehension. Be as it may, no such plea was raised either in the restoration application or, before the learned Labour Court. From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, it is apparent that the petitioner has been gross negligent in pursuing the remedy before the learned Labour Court and in view thereof, this Court finds no reason, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Labour Court based on material on record. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/23