Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30 Although, it may not be open to this Court to take any divergent view from the view taken in the decisions relied upon by Mr.Dankh, learned Counsel for the employer, it is to be noted that the fact situation in the said decisions was not the same as the fact situation in the present case. In the present case, the statement, that the workmen obtained knowledge of the Industrial Court's order dated 21.08.2004, on 24.09.2004, has neither been seriously controverted nor has the evidence to that effect led by the workmen demolished. From the date of such knowledge, the application for restoration has been filed within hardly four days. In fact, certified copy of the order was received by the workmen on 25.09.2004 and from that date, the application for restoration has been virtually filed within three days. Taking into consideration this significant fact, it cannot be said that the application for restoration, made by the workmen on 28.09.2004, was barred by limitation, simply because the same was filed on 37 th day, as computed from the Industrial Court's order dated 21.08.2004. None of the decisions relied upon by Mr.Dankh, advocate, suggest such a pedantic construction.