UKHC010108162026 2026:UHC:5840 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1924/2026 Piyush Mittal --Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Haridwar --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Rahul Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner is connected virtually. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his restoration application by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haridwar, vide order dated 17.03.2026. 3. Perusal of the said order indicates that notices issued in respect of proceedings under Section 33(c)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, instituted by Respondent No. 2, were duly served upon the petitioner; however, petitioner did not care to appear before the Labour Court, consequently, the Labour Court proceeded ex-parte and allowed the application filed by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 11.08.2023. 4. Petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking restoration of proceedings, with delay condonation application. The delay condonation application was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2025, subject to payment of cost of ₹1,000/-. The restoration application, however, was rejected on merits by holding that no good ground is made out UKHC010108162026 2026:UHC:5840 for restoring the proceedings. 5. This Court do not find any scope for interference with the order impugned in the writ petition. It is not the case that notices issued by learned Labour Court were not served upon the petitioner. The only explanation offered by him was that he did not have knowledge of law. Perusal of impugned order reveals that petitioner did not file affidavit in support of statements made in restoration application while the objection filed by respondent was supported by affidavit, therefore, learned Labour Court inferred that petitioner is not serious about the statement made in his application and he is avoiding responsibility 6. If, despite due notice, petitioner do not participate in the proceedings, then he alone has to be blamed. Labour Court, therefore, was justified in proceeding ex-parte and deciding the application; and no good ground was made out by petitioner for restoration of the proceedings. 7. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 15.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f98 02a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5 C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.20 06:49:51 -07'00' UKHC010108162026 2026:UHC:5840