The petitioner is the appellant in an Appeal Petition No. TUA 1 of 2013 filed under Sec.11 of the Trade Union Act, 1926. He had preferred I.A.No.50/2013 before the Labour Court, Ernakulam on 18.3.2013 for condonation of delay. The Appeal had been filed challenging the order of cancelling the registration of the petitioner's Trade Union. Along with the Appeal, the petitioner had produced 10 documents. However, the said documents were not produced along with the petition for condonation of delay. For the above reason, according to the petitioner, the said documents were not considered and consequently, the delay condonation petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5 order. The limited relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the Labour Court, Ernakulam, to consider the delay condonation petition afresh, in the light of the 10 documents produced by the petitioner along with the Appeal. W.P.(C) No.31651 of 2013 -: 2 :-
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. Since Ext.P5 has been passed without considering the documents that the petitioner had produced along with the Appeal, it is only proper that the said documents are also considered while deciding whether to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. For the above purpose, it is necessary that the matter is considered afresh by the Labout Court, Ernakulam. This writ petition is therefore, allowed. Ext.P5 order of the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.50/2013 in TUA 1 of 2013 is set aside. The Labour Court, Ernakulam is directed to consider I.A.No.50/2013 afresh, in the light of the documents produced along with the Appeal and any other additional documents that the petitioner may choose to produce in support of his contentions and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
Jvt