Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/1057/2026 of BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION Vs UNION OF INDIA on 17 May 2026
GAHC010064772026 2026:GAU-AS:6818 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1057/2026 BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION BOKAJAN, P.O. BOKAJAN, DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG, PIN 782490, BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010064772026
2026:GAU-AS:6818
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1057/2026
BOKAJAN CEMENT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION
BOKAJAN, P.O. BOKAJAN, DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG, PIN 782490, BEING
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI PRATAP BORAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, SON OF LATE PURNA CHANDRA BORA, RESIDENT OF BOARDING ROAD, WARD NO. 6, P.O. AND P.S. SIVASAGAR, 785640
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI 110001
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
JANATA BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
3:MANAGEMENT OF BOKAJAN CEMENT FACTORY A UNIT OF CEMENT
CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
BOKAJAN DISTRICT KARBI ANGLON
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. S.R.A. Naser, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Roy, Sr. Advocate Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC
Mr. B.P. Sarmah, Advocate
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 18.05.2026
This is an application filed for condonation of a delay of 29 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22.10.2025.
2. Taking into account the reasons assigned and there being no objection from the respondents, this Court condones the delay of 29 days in preferring the accompanying application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 22.10.2025.
3. With the above, I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant