Appeal No. D-1/26/2019
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal dismissed an application for restoration of an appeal. The court found the appellant negligent due to prior absences and treated the counsel's error in noting the hearing date as untrue, granting no indulgence.
What the court decided
Page 1 of 3
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, DELHI
Appeal no. D-1/26/2019
M/s. Multiserv India Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant
Through:- None for the appellant.
vs.
APFC, Delhi (South). …..Respondent
Through:- Ms. Swati Surhatia, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
Order Dated:- 15.09.2025
This order shall dispose of an application filed by the appellant under order IX rule 4 read with section 151 CPC seeking restoration of the present appeal and recalling of the order dated 29.07.2025. It is submitted that the non-prosecution of the appeal on the part of Ld. Counsel for the appellant is neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred because of some bona fide mistakes on the last date of hearing. It is further submitted that the Ld. Counsel for the appellant who appeared on 20.05.2025, noted down the wrong date of next hearing. As a result, neither the counsel for the appellant nor the appellant could appear before the Tribunal on 29.07.2025, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to restoration of the appeal despite repeated absences and negligence by counsel.
Whether bona fide mistake notes by counsel constitute sufficient grounds for indulgence in labour proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Multiserv India Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
APFC, Delhi (South).
Coram
Atul Kumar Garg
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page
- Order 2
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court