The Manager, Premium Shoes vs K. Srinivasan and Others

K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order made in I.A. No. 284 of 2005 in I.A. No. 523 of 2004 in

C.P. No. 630 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore, wherein the Application filed by the Petitioner to set aside the order passed in I.A.

No. 523 of 2004 dated 7.2.2005 came to be dismissed. The Respondents herein filed C.P. No. 630 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court,

Vellore seeking for payment of Rs. 1,26,407.12 being the differential amount in the wages payable to one Selvi, who is the wife of the First

Respondent and mother of the other Respondents. In the said C.P., an ex parte order came to be passed on 8.7.2004 directing the Petitioner

herein to make the payment. The Petitioner filed I.A. No. 523 of 2004 to set aside the said ex parte Order. The said I.A. No. 523 of 2004 again

came to be dismissed for default on 7.2.2005. For restoration of the said I.A., the Petitioner herein filed another Application in I.A. No. 284 of

2005. In the said Application, an Order came to be passed on 21.4.2006 thereby allowing the same subject to a condition that the Petitioner

herein should pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost to the Respondents herein on or before 20.5.2006. It is stated that the said cost was not paid by the

Petitioner to the other side within the time stipulated. Consequently the said I.A. No. 284 of 2005 was taken up for further hearing on 16.10.2006

and by noting that the conditional Order was not complied with, the Court below dismissed I.A. No. 284 of 2005. Aggrieved against the same, the

present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that after filing this Civil Revision Petition and as per the conditional Order passed by

this Court while granting stay, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 63,205/- on the file of the Court below, which shows his bona fide. He also

submitted that non-payment of Rs. 500/- within the time stipulated is not with any intention and on the other hand it was beyond the control of the

Petitioner as the Petitioner was not informed about the said conditional Order by their Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

also relied on two decisions of this Court reported in Rama Gounder Vs. Sakthivel ; and Palanisamy Vs. Muthusamy Gounder, , to contend that

even in the absence of payment of the Cost, this Court has directed the Application to be heard on merits taking note of the peculiar circumstances

of that case.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that when an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to pay the cost

for allowing the Application for restoration, the Petitioner having not availed such opportunity is not entitled to seek any indulgence before this

Court. Even though the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contested the Revision Petition, he is also fair enough to submit

alternatively that the Petitioner may be directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 63,205/- before the Court below and on such event the

Application may be directed to be taken up for disposal on merits. I find that though the Petitioner has not complied with the condition of

depositing Rs. 500/- within the time stipulated by the Court below, they have however shown their bona fide by depositing Rs. 63,205/- as

directed by this Court while granting the Interim Order. It is also to be seen that the Respondents herein did not challenge the Order dated

21.4.2006 in I.A. No. 284 of 2005 allowing the Application subject to payment of cost. Therefore the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to

contest the matter on merits and consequently the Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to the condition that the Petitioner deposits the balance

amount of Rs. 63,205/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On payment of such deposit before the

Court below, I.A. No. 523 of 2004 will be restored and taken up for hearing and order will be passed on merits after hearing both sides. The

parties are directed to appear before the Court below without taking unnecessary adjournments. The Court below is directed to dispose of the

matter within a period of three months from the date of such deposit made by the Petitioner. It is also made clear that directing the Petitioner to

make such deposit is without prejudice to his right to contest the C.P. on merits. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.