Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOHAN ROBERT CENTRAL GOVT. INDIA versus L.G.I.L.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Johan Robert Central Govt. India v. L.G.I.L.C. - WRIT - C No. 21534 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 662 (10 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.21534 of 1988

Jhon Robert                                                .....Petitioner

Versus

Central Government Industrial Labour Court,

Kanpur and another.                                 .....Respondents

-----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapur, J.

This petition is filed against an order of the Presiding Officer  dated 6.9.88 in proceedings under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  

The admitted case is that the petitioner was given his designation on 30.4.81.  The designation was that of an overseer.

The petitioner has moved this application under Section 33 C(2) claiming benefit of the order granting  designation on 30.4.81 for the period 1961 to 1981 i.e., to say with retrospective effect.  

It is settled law that the proceedings under Section 33 C(2) are summary in nature and relief can be given to a workman under the said provisions only when a right has crystallized in his favour.  This is the law, which has been laid down not in one but in number of cases.  I seek to rely on the case of Muncipal Corporation of Delhi Vs.  Ganesh Razak  as reported in 1995(1) S.C.C.235.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything to the Court from which any right is crystallized in favour of the petitioner for the period 1966 to 1981.  

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that proceedings under Section 33 C(2) are in the nature of execution proceedings and are of a very limited nature.  Any issue, which requires determination afresh, or investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 33 C(2).

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the order passed on 6.9.88 does not suffer from any illegality or defect, which can be judicially reviewed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the order dated 6.9.88 is upheld.  The writ petition is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 10.1.06

L.F.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.