Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.A.ABRAHAM, MANGATTORATHU versus THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.A.ABRAHAM, MANGATTORATHU v. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM - WA No. 1443 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11250 (26 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1443 of 2007()

1. K.A.ABRAHAM, MANGATTORATHU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
... Respondent

2. KUNNAPPALLY KSHEEROPADAKA SAHAKARANA

For Petitioner :SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM

For Respondent :SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :26/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

C.M.Appln. No.604 of 2007 and W.A.No.1443 of 2007

Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L. DATTU, CJ. The appellant in this appeal calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.18443/1995 dated 16th March 2005. By the impugned order the learned Judge has rejected the writ petition only on the ground that though the respondents were prepared to reinstate the petitioner into service, for some reason or other the petitioner did not chose to accept the offer made by the respondent society.

2. There is a delay in filing the writ appeal. For condonation of delay in filing the appeal, petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. In the affidavit filed along with the application the petitioner has stated that he was suffering from some ailments and further there was a tussle between him and his son and therefore he could not contact his advocate to prefer an appeal within the period of limitation.

4. There is a delay of 772 days in filing the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal is not properly explained. The reason assigned by the applicant in the affidavit, in our opinion, is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore the said explanation cannot be accepted by us. Therefore the application W.A.No.1443/2007 2 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal requires to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected. Consequently the appeal also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

mt/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.