Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GYANESHWAR PRASAD versus CONSOLIDATION OFFICER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gyaneshwar Prasad v. Consolidation Officer & Others - WRIT - C No. 12687 of 1996 [2006] RD-AH 7829 (18 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

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.12687 OF 1996

Gyameshwar Prasad                                           .......Petitioner

Versus

Conciliation Officer, Bareilly and others.      ......Respondents

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition against an order dated 11.4.94 passed by the Conciliation Officer, by which, he has rejected the petitioner's application for conciliation and for referring the matter as an industrial dispute.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1984 but sought to raise a dispute in the year 1993.  The Conciliation Officer taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case has come to the conclusion that the delay made by the petitioner in approaching the Conciliation Officer was not a reasonable one and, therefore, has rejected the application for Conciliation.

I have heard learned counsel for both parties and I have seen the records.  The facts are undisputed.  It cannot be said that the order of the Conciliation Officer finding the period of nine year's delay as unreasonable.  Instead the workman was tardy in approaching the Industrial Court for relief.

The workman slept over the matter for nine years.  Only that delay can be condoned which is reasonable delay or which has been reasonably explained.

:2:

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the delay is unreasonable and not explained properly, the same should not be condoned.  For this purpose, I rely on the case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Vs. Shri Shivalinga as reported in JT 2001(10) S.C. 428 and also in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and others as reported in JT 2000 (1) S. C 388.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Dated : 18/4/06

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.