Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S U.P. TWIGA FIBRE GLASS LIMITED versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT (II), U.P. GHAZIABAD & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Ii), U.P. Ghaziabad & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 19417 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7540 (10 April 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

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent no.1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II) U.P., Ghaziabad not to proceed further to decide the application dated 29.11.2004 filed by the Respondent no.2-workman. The said application dated 29.11.2004 had been filed before the Labour Court under section 6-H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Earlier the Respondent no.2-workman had filed writ petition no.940 of 2005 which was disposed of on 11.1.2005 with the following observations:-

"The counsel for the petitioner contended that an application under 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has been filed by the petitioner on 29.11.2004, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Petitioner having already approached the Labour Court by filing application under section 6-H (2), the writ petition cannot be entertained. It is, however, observed that application of the petitioner dated 29.11.2004may be considered expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

 Thus the said application dated 29.11.2004 is being decided by the Labour Court under the directions of this Court passed in writ petition no. 940 of 2005. Since by means of this writ petition the petitioner is praying for a direction to the Labour Court not to proceed further and decide the application dated 29.11.2004, in my view the same would be indirect conflict with the order dated 11.1.2005 passed in writ petition no. 940 of 2005. As such the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be  granted as long as the order dated 11.1.2005 passed in writ petition no. 940 of 2005 stands.

This writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 10.4.2006

dps

w.p. 19417.06


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.