The complaint had been languishing in the Labour Court at Solapur for nearly two decades. During this protracted period, the case reached the evidence recording stage. However, complications arose when the complainant's advocate reported that the petitioner was unresponsive, leading to the dismissal of the complaint in default. Following this, the petitioner filed a restoration application (Misc. (ULP) No. 5 of 2011) within the stipulated 30 days. On April 30, 2012, the Labour Court dismissed this restoration request, concluding that the petitioner had deliberately neglected to attend hearings, likely due to enjoying interim protective orders. This decision was later upheld by the Industrial Court, which dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant on November 22, 2013.

The respondent's representative put forth several arguments opposing the petition. Key points included:

The interim relief granted to the complainant had unduly prolonged the proceedings.

The petitioner’s continued absence during crucial stages, especially after 19 years, demonstrated a lack of diligence.

Although the restoration application was filed on time, the Labour Court noted significant delays in pursuing the original complaint.

The Industrial Court did not err in rejecting the revision proceedings based on these findings.

The court noted that the petitioner bore the primary responsibility for the protracted nature of the case. After such a lengthy period, it was expected that he would be more proactive in pursuing his complaint. The default dismissal effectively extinguished his ability to contest his dismissal.

However, the petitioner’s advocate emphasized the hardships endured by the complainant over the last 13 years, including the impact of the default dismissal on his employment status. Importantly, the petitioner expressed a willingness to forego any back wages from the date of the dismissal order, should the court restore the complaint.

Taking into account the unique circumstances, the court decided to restore the complaint, allowing the petitioner a chance to challenge his dismissal. The ruling quashed previous orders dismissing the complaint and set specific directives for moving forward.

The court mandated that the petitioner present himself before the Labour Court on October 21, 2024, to begin leading oral evidence. Furthermore, the Labour Court was instructed to expedite the process, concluding proceedings by February 28, 2025, with hearings occurring weekly. The interim relief that had been granted previously would not be reinstated.

This case highlights the complexities involved in labor disputes, particularly those that endure over extended periods. While the court recognized the challenges faced by the petitioner, it also emphasized the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings. The ruling serves as a reminder that while justice can be pursued, it requires active participation from all parties involved.