Bombay High Court

ANJALI MAYAVANSHIversusRUSHI MEHARA

Decided: 20 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order and restored the reference, holding that the Court’s demand for the treating doctor’s appearance was unwarranted.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Anjali Mayavanshi, filed a writ petition challenging a decision of the First Labour Court, Pune, which had refused to restore a reference (IDA No.403 of 2018) that had been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The petitioner had submitted medical certificates to explain her non‑attendance at hearings, but the Labour Court demanded that the treating doctor appear before it to substantiate the claim. The High Court examined whether such a requirement was proper and whether the Labour Court had misused its discretionary power to refuse restoration. It held that the Labour Court’s insistence on the doctor’s appearance was unwarranted and that the discretion to restore proceedings can be exercised when a legitimate cause is shown. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s order and restored the reference for adjudication on its merits. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was disposed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Labour Court erred in refusing to restore a reference dismissed for non‑prosecution on the basis of medical certificates.
Whether the Labour Court can compel the treating doctor to appear before it to prove the authenticity of medical certificates.
Whether the discretionary jurisdiction of the Labour Court to restore proceedings can be exercised when a cause for non‑attendance is demonstrated.

Subjects

labour law
restoration of reference
non‑prosecution
medical certificate
discretionary jurisdiction
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:34472

              Megha                                               27_wp_16166_2025


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.16166 OF 2025

              Smt. Anjali Mayavanshi                             ...Petitioner

                                 V/s.

              Rushi Mehara                                      ...Respondent
                                          ________________
              Mr. Anshuman R. Asare (through vc) for the Petitioner.
              Mr. Varun Joshi (through vc) with Mr. Rishabh N. Chaurasai with Mr.
              Pranit Pawar i/b. Mr. Chetan Alai for the Respondent.
                                          ________________


                                                      CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                      DATED: 20 AUGUST 2026.


              P.C.:


              1)      The Petition challenges order dated 28 April 2025 passed by the
              learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, rejecting the
              Application for restoration of the Reference, which was dismissed for
              non-prosecution.


              2)      I have heard Mr. Asare, the learned counsel appearing for the
              Petitioner through Legal Aid and Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel
              appearing for the Respondent.




                                               Page No.1 of 2
                                              20 August 2026
                          Megha                                                    27_wp_16166_2025


                          3)          Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court would
                          indicate that medical certificates were produced by the Petitioner to
                          justify non-attendance on the dates of hearing. However, instead of
                          accepting the correctness of those medical records, the learned Labour
                          Court has expected the Petitioner to examine the treating Doctor. Such
                          kind of approach by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is not
                          appreciated. Restoration of the proceedings, which are dismissed for
                          want of prosecution is mainly the discretion of the Court. So long as
                          some cause is demonstrated, the Court can exercise the discretionary
                          jurisdiction and grant an opportunity to the litigant to prosecute the
                          litigation on merit. Expecting that the treating Doctor must appear
                          before the Labour Court and lead evidence of treatment given for the
                          ailment is clearly unwarranted. The impugned order passed by the
                          learned Judge of the Labour Court is clearly unsustainable and liable to
                          be set aside.


                          4)          The Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 28 April 2025
                          passed by the Labour Court is set aside. Reference (IDA) No.403 of 2018
                          is restored on the file of the Labour Court, which shall be proceeded to
                          decide the same on its own merits.


                          5)          Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. There
                          shall be no order as to costs.


                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Megha S. Parab
                                                              Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                          20 August 2026
Date: 21/08/2026 11:04:23

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…